On my last post the discussion turned to how likely the average man was to have learned about the mechanics of sexual attraction. TFH argued that the time is approaching where this information will be so widely available that if one hasn’t started picking it up it is an indication of unwillingness to learn, not lack of exposure:

As bad as feminists and ordinary women are, by the end of 2015, we will reach the point where some men will have to be told that ‘you cannot entirely blame the burglar if leave the front door open with a neon arrow pointing to it, while you go out of town’.

I won’t try to predict the saturation of information by 2016, but right now very few men over the age of 25-30 have ever heard of either the manosphere or the concept of game. Even so, exposure is the least of our challenges. Feminism is the dominant ideology of our age, and learning that women are attracted to men who lead them is tantamount to crimethink. It doesn’t matter that it is true; entertaining thoughts which counter feminism is a terrifying prospect. This is perhaps more the case for those who don’t see themselves as feminist, and especially those who consider themselves anti-feminist because they oppose abortion, think men have a duty to man up and marry a woman once she has had sex with enough other men, and believe that men have a duty to act as a traditional protector and provider (but not head of household) so their wife can decide if she wants to have a career or stay at home.

The proof of our challenge with older men is not how many have ever heard of Roissy, but the hundreds of millions of Christians who have spent a lifetime avoiding and denying the parts of the Bible which offend feminism.

The best we can hope for is to help those men who are willing to challenge the dominant ideology and overcome their lifetime investment in a mental model of romance which fails miserably but “everyone knows” is right. I don’t think posts like my last one will spark a movement, and that isn’t my intent. I’m simply hoping to help the handful of married men who are ready to learn, and in doing so help a few more kids grow up with their father in the home.

But there is another side to this. Younger men, the ones now in high school, college, and perhaps a few years older, live in a very different world than the one older men came of age in. When I was in college in the late 80s and early 90s, half of all women still married before the age of 24. As I explained here, this influenced the actions of women going back to their late teens. Very large numbers of women were still interested in having a steady boyfriend while in college, and soon thereafter marriage. If you were a man in college without a girlfriend, at least you saw your friends having girlfriends, and you saw the men just a few years older than you getting married.

Now the majority of women are spending a decade after coming of age sexually pursuing a small percentage of the most attractive men. When given the choice, young women have overwhelmingly chosen hookups over commitment. If you are a young man witnessing this, the lie my peers and I were brought up with that women naturally commit for life is forever exploded. The flower of women’s youth is now dedicated to the men who can generate the most “tingles”. In this environment the answer to the question of why young women are focused on the attention of a small number of men (and how to possibly join those men) is a secret the KGB couldn’t have kept. Even if you aren’t able or interested in joining the small group of men, the truth of game will be in front of you every day.

All that was missing was a clear explanation of why women obviously behave in fundamentally different ways than conventional wisdom predicts. Men like Mystery and Roissy and now countless others have done just that. Knowledge of “game” is rapidly becoming mainstream for high school and college age men. They don’t have to learn it from the internet, they hear it from the very men their female peers are falling all over. As a result it is starting to show up both in character archetypes and even in the dialog of movies aimed at young people. One example which comes to mind is the remake of a 1980s vampire movie, Fright Night 2011. Early in the movie we see a fairly ordinary high school kid with a surprisingly hot girlfriend. His very manner shows an understanding of game, and this struck me when watching the movie even before this exchange where one of his peers asks what his secret is:

[referring to Amy as they watch her walk away]Mark: Did you find a freakin’ Genie Lamp, man? Make a sacrifice to the hot ass God? Cause how do you get that?Charley Brewster: It’s just game, man. Rock solid game.
[Charley walks away]Mark: He doesn’t even have a car!Ben: Seriously!

This generational shift is the real threat to feminism, and there would be no way to stop this if you wanted to. Shut down every blog in the manosphere and the only question is how long before all of the institutions of our society, from the church and academia to the police and the Supreme Court are populated by men who understand what game teaches. This won’t mean the end of feminism, because the power is already deeply entrenched and we will still have what Rollo has coined the feminine imperative. However, it will mean that feminism won’t have a choke-hold on the discourse, and won’t be able to make men fear the crimethink of examining the true nature of men and women.

476 Responses to A secret the KGB couldn’t have kept.

From my experiences as a 27 year old man, most men my age know what game is even if they wouldnt call it that and wouldnt be ableto describe it. There’s four catagories – denialists, envious caught in victim mentality, haters, and gamers. Ordered largest to smallest to largest.

But very, very few don’t know society’s playing a game on them. Its simply their mentality that chooses their response to it

From my experiences as a 27 year old man, most men my age know what game is even if they wouldnt call it that and wouldnt be ableto describe it. There’s four catagories – denialists, envious caught in victim mentality, haters, and gamers. Ordered largest to smallest to largest.

This makes sense, because they witnessed the different climate without the explanation being formalized. Mystery’s book would have come out when your cohort was already finishing or out of college. Younger men don’t start with the investment in the broken model, so when faced with both the cultural change and the explanation it isn’t difficult to accept.

Even the deniers and haters you describe though I would wager aren’t denying the basic explanation game offers for what women are doing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they don’t believe that women really just want a nice man to give them flowers and gifts and commit to her. To the extent that they reject game, they are rejecting that the average man can learn game and use it to his advantage.

I am not a believer – I don’t believe in Game. It is not that I think it immoral, nor that I think it is undesirable, but the idea that some nerd can pull some hottie by a few suitably placed negs, or demonstrations of value, is largely implausible. Last night I was in the Bar and I could not help but observe that the best looking chick – tall svelte blond (an 8) was with a guy – tall dark and handsome (also an 8 I’d say) even though he seemed to have a foolish grin. That is not the result of game, but the fact that hot chicks go for hot guys – oh, by the way I got the ‘look’ from a married woman, but she was way too old, and I am not into getting into fights with married guys, so I went home alone as hordes of antler-wearing men and women crowded into the bar.

What I think is more important, is that guys are wising up to the behaviour of females and taking note and acting accordingly – consider the marriage strike; the desparate and ridiculous profiles from 40-something women on POF and OKCupid; and the latest Dalrock charts which show the unlikelihood of women over 35 and over 40 marrying at all. I was talking with my mate and telling him about our local dating agency where both the men and women pay equally for introductions. He reminded me that on the site he was on, the women, far from being aging cat-ferders, were hot young former-Soviets, and only the men paid. One cannot but fail to notice these things. These anglo-women have a very very low MMV and will be treated accordingly if they attempt to present themselves as marriage material – which is why my friend married the soviet (and very cute she is too). Western women have and are overplaying their hand. Twenty plus years in the dating market , on the paper-chase, and establishing your corprate-cubicle career, merely leaves you (by reason of Abortions, STDs and failed relationships – as well as the probability of an increasingly unpleasant demeanour), unmarriagable. ‘Twas always thus.

I am frankly stunned at the anti-game community within the manosphere. People who deny it exists, its efficacy, and its social practicality in a man’s life if he doesn’t want to be abandoned, LJBF-ed or divorced because she had to Eat, Pray & Love her way into a thug’s arms.

The Mystery Method, The Game, and Blueprint Decoded are three premium sources if you want to make her so wet you could drown a dacshund puppy in her panties (apologies to Pam on Archer).

I am not a believer – I don’t believe in Game. It is not that I think it immoral, nor that I think it is undesirable, but the idea that some nerd can pull some hottie by a few suitably placed negs, or demonstrations of value, is largely implausible.

Roissy, for one, has never contended that game will work miracles. He has often said that Game will allow a man to date women a point or two higher than his natural level. That’s all. Furthermore, a big chunk of Game theory is devoted, not to scoring, but to relationship management. Opus is a generally thoughtful and expressive fellow, but he’s set up a bit of a strawman here.

When you spend a lot of time inside an echo chamber, it’s hard to tell how much your ideas are spreading on the outside. I hope this is right, but I don’t know any 18-25-year-old men to ask. These ideas aren’t exactly new to film, though. How many years since movies like Swingers and How to Be a Player came out? Not to mention every romantic comedy made before 1960 or so, with dominant male leads grabbing or spanking women on a regular basis. So I’m not sure this is a real change, but like I said, I don’t have the right perspective to tell.

If the word is getting out there, the next reaction will be the disinformation campaign. We may be seeing a little of that now with “anti-feminists” trying to reframe the message to say women should allow men to be providers. There will be more of that.

An analogous situation would be the truth about obesity. Before about 1960 or so, everyone knew that sweets made you fat, and if you needed to lose weight, you skipped dessert. There were diet books written in the 19th century saying to avoid beer, bread, and sweets to lose weight, even though they didn’t know the science behind it. Then some radical vegetarians, assisted by money from the grain processors and a dishonest study by Ancel Keys, managed to spread the idea that animal fats were the real problem. The truth was still out there, and almost immediately, Atkins and then others began promoting low-carb and studying the science behind it. But the mainstream was convinced: grains good, fat bad, animal fat real bad.

Several years ago, it started to seem like low-carb was going to catch on. People outside the echo chamber started hearing about it and being willing to try it, and low-carb products even started appearing on the shelves. But then the disinformation began — it’s just a fad, it’s just a trick to convince yourself to eat less (which would be bad how?), your kidneys will fall out. Most of the people who tried it were on their twelfth diet, and never really understood how different it was from the others, so this one didn’t work for them either, and they “proved” it was just another fad, for them at least. Now, a dozen or more years since I first lost weight with low-carb, and decades since Atkins’s first book, there’s still only a tiny minority who understand low-carb, and our grocery stores, airwaves, and magazines are inundated with “healthy grains” low-fat propaganda. New evidence and understanding of the underlying biology is discovered regularly, and low-carb diets are a lot better designed than before, but it doesn’t matter. I can’t see that the mainstream opinion has wised up at all. The information is still out there, but only a few rare individuals are open to the red pill on it.

And that’s a topic where people have far less personally invested than in feminism and other forms of modernism. Low-carb promoters were laughed at and marginalized; promoters of the red pill on male/female relations will be viciously attacked. It’ll take a lot more than just making people aware of game, but that is the first step. Guess we’ll see.

You’re being intellectually dishonest by claiming the people who are reading Heartiste aren’t trying to do what is written on their in real life, then turning around and saying it isn’t directed at nerds.

On top of this you got men like Stephen Baskerville who wrote a book called Taken into Custody which exposes the Divorce Industry corruption. Men often have to pay child support and alimony based up inputted him where they are left with no more than a couple dollars a month in order to survive. In fact Outcast Superstar typed up pages 143-146 of this book and it’s quite disturbing.

Although I disagree with Opus regarding the efficacy of game – I have applied it and it has transformed both my marriage and sex life – the rest of his anecdotes ring true with my observations.

I have a 19 year old son and he and most of his friends are game-aware (to varying degrees of course); it is almost in the air they breathe. As is feminism and ‘equality’. Game + feminism is a strange and potent mix. Because I see my son and his peers treat girls exactly as feminists whined they wanted women treated – as equals. Which translates into no special favours, no expensive gifts, no concessions – in fact a whole lot of ‘no’.

Just has feminism has tried to make women equal to men by tearing men down in the workplace, family, church etc. it has also torn women down (in young men’s eyes) in the sex, relationship and marriage space.

Women have bought the lie that they don’t need men.
Young men are seeing the truth that they don’t need women.

The only reason we are seeing the women starting to notice now is that there has been a 50 year time lag between women playing by the new rules and men playing by the new rules.

I suspect that one of the major dynamics we will see play out as the pendulum swings back from feminism will be millions of men individually, simply, saying out loud or to themselves ‘no’.

The men who are reading about ‘game’ on blogs arrive because they are trying to get laid 99% of the time. These aren’t Brad Pitt and Becks. The people who read game blogs are nerds, we all are, reading blogs is pretty much a defining trait of the modern nerd. And yes, game blogs give a false sense that a nerd reading it CAN pick up a hottie if only he ‘games’ her.

Divorced men, men who have lost their jobs, men who have had paternity fraud perpetrated on them arrive from totally different places and experience then the readers of game blogs, sometimes (like Dalrock) they try to cross over. But the link between MRA and gamesphere is tenuous as best, and declining with time.

You’re being intellectually dishonest by claiming the people who are reading Heartiste aren’t trying to do what is written on their in real life, then turning around and saying it isn’t directed at nerds.

I’d respond, but I can’t figure out what you’re accusing me of. I said that no promoter of game claims that (to quote Opus) “some nerd can pull some hottie by a few suitably placed negs, or demonstrations of value.” I didn’t say game sites aren’t directed at nerds (although I don’t know how you’d determine that they are any more than any other kind of web site), or that readers aren’t applying it in their real lives. I hope they are. I did (although I learned about game long before Roissy; it predates him, believe it or not) and it made a big difference in my life. But it didn’t mean that I could be a nerd and throw out a few negs and snag a hottie, and no one ever told me it would.

If some nerd reads Roissy and picks out a few negs, uses them on the hottest hottie he can find, and gets shot down, tough shit. He should have paid more attention. That’s not Roissy’s fault, and it’s certainly not a fault with game.

@ Dalrock
No, sadly there are still men my age that, despite openly admitting with their words that they can see something wrong, dont realize whats wrong nor do anything to change their actions. A part of them feels someones running a scam on them, but then they play by the rules society gives them. My younger brother is actually one of them being engaged to a recovered alcoholic who may not be able to have kids, is controlling, and convinced him to wait till marriage for sex despite neither being virgins. As you may suspect – he’s deep in Churchian mentality after he converted three years ago. He and the other denialists see the problem but then ignore it. Most of them are Christian men with blinders on

I’d say both the victims and haters, don’t deny game explanations but do deny solutions exist. Just like you say.

The victims dont think theres anything they can do and/or that women should love them for who they are, but acknowledge hypergamy. They just delight in their victimhood status and love whining about how its not fair.

Haters are victims that instead spew anger at men willing to address the problem. They dont blame women for the issues, but double down on men for mistreating women and thus creating the problems. That or theres some that just see success and dont want to go through the effort because it looks effortless to them till they try it. They then deem it impossible to change. You just have it or you dont.

The distinctions are complicated but incredibly interesting to me. Probably one of the most interesting things I’ve seen since taking the red pill is what reactions people give to my increased confidence, health, fashion, etc. People that have seen the changes push back. People that learn after I meet them how much effort I go through to be happy and healthy push back. Its crazy but hilarious how they deny it works or deny its worth it

Re: game allowing hopeless nerds to score with hotties in 20 minutes or less, yeah, not so much.

But game turning hopeless nerds into not-so-hopeless nerds? And not-so-hopeless nerds to normal guys with a nerdy hobby or two? And maybe when they move, they end up hanging out with a different crowd they might not have approached before? Absolutely.

Some nerds, in my experience, are punching *below* their weight. There’s a lot of untapped potential in the modern nerd, methinks.

Oh. I should add the other kind of man that I’ve seen fall within denial categories fairly often are the ones that make science a true religion. I get a lot of denial from engineers or other people so deep in the STEM life that the dont actually challenge any ideas.

Maybe thats a part of it. People that stop questioning what they’re told even as they know somethings off and admit it. They dont ever change. Even with hammering or subtle arguments to their worldviews. Only denial in actions after verbal agreement

I waver between two opposite viewpoints, and am constantly trying to resolve them: that game is rapidly going mainstream, and that game will never go mainstream because the majority of men don’t want to accept it for whatever reason.

We’ve seen that large hordes of men will reject any sort of challenge to the fem-centric narrative – conservatives because it upsets their tradcon values of hearth and home and virtuous women civilizing brutish men, liberals because it offends their egalitarian values and blank-slate political correctness.

This was oft discussed at Susan Walsh’s blog, women insisting that game was creating a new legion of sadistic cads hungry to abuse women. I argued vociferously that young women’s voracious consumption of boorish alpha males and rejection of gentle betas (labeled “creepers” among other heavy insults) was in fact what was creating a new stripe of men who don’t care about women, as they learned to either ape the behaviors that get the alpha males the desperately-desired sexual attention, or they learn to live without women entirely. Susan said things like “EVERY young man has some game these days,” which was a silly nobody-I-know-voted-for-Nixon kind of overstatement, but men are paying attention, and the smart ones are figuring out what these women really want (i.e. not the reliable boyfriend type).

I do think the KNOWLEDGE of game is rapidly going mainstream, as the cover has been blown off of young college women’s sexual promiscuity and its focus on a small, privileged cohort of men, and we are learning how those behaviors can be learned and improved for the benefit of men who are not naturally highly attractive.

However, I believe the ADOPTION of game is going to continue to be a hard slog, reserved only for a small set of men who think outside the box, can tolerate cognitive dissonance or otherwise can change the way they approach the world without it seriously disturbing their own sense of self – so many men are invested in an image of themselves that is totally ineffective in expressing strength and being attractive to women, and asking them to change that produces an intense rejection of you and your message.

To make a quick analogy, there’s never been more available knowledge about how to stay in shape. Yet the country keeps getting fatter (in fact is probably bifurcating into fit and fat sectors). People don’t even want to face the ways they are doing it wrong, let alone start doing it right. [Saw as I was writing this that Cail checked in with the same analogy, great minds etc]

I believe the only thing that is going to take game mainstream is if it becomes integrated into the structure of society – as, truly, it once was. When the tenets of game become a commonly-held beliefs around which social rituals and structures are built (as the hypergamous, assortive-mating dating/courting/marriage system used to be), men won’t have to consciously choose game, which most men have demonstrated they can’t do. It will simply be part of how society works.

I don’t expect that to happen unless/until we have a real society-wide disaster that requires a quick and fundamental reorganization of society. One of the costs of the sexual free market we are in today has been the wholesale emasculation of a large chunk of men, and in turn one of the externalities has been the dearth of marriage-ready men for the women who spent their best years rewarding men who weren’t going to stick around.

Finally, a point we discussed at Alpha Game yesterday: even when you get good at game, there’s still a degree to which game’s success can shock you. Myself and Cail Corishev both expressed our continuing amazement at how well game works, even when deployed in a predictable, templatized manned. There are costs to learning game, and the disappointment of seeing all your illusions (pretty lies) dissolve is one of them.

It’s also worth noting, for the benefit of new readers brought from the previous post, that there’s really two discussions of “game” going on in this community: you could call them micro-game and macro-game.

“Micro-game” is how to tune/change your behavior to increase a woman’s attraction to you or to otherwise influence her behavior (and we’ve noticed that the best way to modify a woman’s behavior is to become more attractive). Behavior in this sense is basically verbal and body language, distinct from your fitness, paycheck, etc. This is “game” in the original sense of the word – a piece of a man’s personality that is orthogonal to the other parts and specifically addresses how he deals with women.

“Macro-game” is the overall structure of who is attractive and why, and all the ways you can change your attractiveness and the relationships around you. This involves not just your social skills but your life habits, your fitness, fashion sense, the trajectory of your life.

Micro-game is why two guys with basically the same look, lifestyle and job will get different results from women – one of them understands how to socially interact with women.

Macro-game is why jocks and frat guys get sex on speeddial while Poindexter in the library struggles to get a date.

Micro-game almost always leads to macro-game in a guy’s improvement plan, because better social skills can only take you so far if you don’t have an improved lifestyle to back it with.

For most single guys, changing your verbal and body behavior can get you almost instantly improved results in the sexual marketplace. For LTR or married guys, you can’t just go approach a new girl and start over, so the focus is on how to better arrange your life habits and structure to get better treatment from your wife. As deti said in the previous thread, if you have structural issues taken care of (keep a job, keep a house, be a responsible adult), it becomes a matter of NOT doing the things that turn your wife off – stop whining, keep your hobbies, don’t beg for her approval.

Dalrock: Another superb post. We’re close in age, and the differences in basic gender realities that 20something guys deal with now, versus two decades ago, is simply astonishing. I get more than a taste of it as, due to divorce – you just knew that was coming – I have been back in the dating pool, whether I wanted to be or not (I didn’t, btw, but hypergamy happens, you know).

Fortunately for me, being a still-handsome guy who’s in shape, is intermittently charming, and is gainfully employed, access to pretty hot chicks is vastly easier than it was in my alleged prime. This poses many theological challenges which …. well, that’s another comment, for another time.

Young guys today are confronted with the appalling realities of female (mis)conduct every day, all day, and it profoundly shapes them. I mentor younger guys in martial arts and the awfulness of the current American young woman is a constant theme when we have beers after sparring. Per the cliche a low percentage of guys really are getting all the action, while most get little, if any. It hurts and the hurt doesn’t go away.

Fortunately the whole “Game” culture has really taken off and that particular genie will not be put back in any bottle. I think the Roissysphere debate has become sterile and needlessly polemical. “Game” is simply a bag of tricks, which are not universally applicable but there’s no better way for your average beta guy to mimic enough alpha attitude to get and keep female attention. Having natural alpha tendencies I find the essence of it unremarkable, pretty much common sense in our degraded and degrading culture, and certainly nothing guys should be arguing over.

The important thing about Roissy is that getting his “vibe” really changes deep-seated views about women and, when shorn of the roughest edges, is an excellent deprogrammer for the male victims of Churchianity. Roissy may be an unbeliever – though I actually think he’s just a repressed moralist; have you noticed how political “he” has gotten of late? – but R/CH has helped save many men from terrible fates at the hands of the harpies.

Game is what it is; use as needed, and learn from what it teaches you, especially if you find it frightening, as most betas do.

If you are like most men and would like to be more successful in this area (or have any success at all), you may not be aware that you were cursed at birth by being born into a society where the ideas of feminism influence EVERYTHING. You’ve been told things your whole life by men and women that aren’t true and continuing to believe them is going to hurt you.

As I write this, I converse with a 29 yr old woman who is convinced that she couldn’t possibly fall for a guy who does pay for all their dates and she won’t take my word for it that this could easily be changed by the right man who flips her attraction switches correctly.

She told me this, because I told her that I never buy women dinner. She has probably, in a exercise of projection, offered advice to men, telling them to pay for dates, because this would earn them success with women.

The opposite is true. While you might be able to pay for dinner with a woman and still have her fall for you, the truth is, as evidenced by science, is that by paying for her meal, you are actually lowering your value in her eyes. She might insist on it, but once you have done so, you’ve convinced her once again that she is a prize and that she deserves it. She’s now that much more likely to rejected you because you’ve lowered your subjective value in contrast to her.

If you are like most men who are unsuccessful in love, you probably believe that buying a woman a nice dinner is the way to go, because no one ever told you differently. She doesn’t know that this hurts your chances, you don’t know it, but ignorance is not bliss (especially when it comes to STDs and hand-grenades).

If you don’t think the study of Game can have a real effect on a man’s romantic success, read the first two chapters of No More Mr Nice Guy by Dr Robert Glover. Men with what Glover calls the Nice Guy syndrome exude the very antithesis of Game…and they never get laid.

What cosmetics and beauty parlour shit is for women, Game is for men. You need a definition?
Game: The study of what women find sexually attractive in men with specific reference to behaviors, attitudes and the spoken word. Following that, body language, physique and cosmetic grooming.

If you still don’t think Game works, read a respected Game book and do the very opposite of what it advises. Good luck!

Let’s try a thought experiment: a nerd boy sees a hottie across the room at a party. He wants to marry her and sire babies upon her, so he considers two plans of action:

A) The way his mommy and the rest of society taught him: He asks some friends who she is and whether she’s seeing someone. He screws up his courage and introduces himself (dangerously skirting the edge of nerd-ville there) and offers to buy her a drink. If he’s taller than her, he hunches down so as not to be intimidating. He’s careful not to touch her without permission. He doesn’t say anything lewd or reveal his baser intentions, because he wants her to know he’s a nice guy who knows she’s a nice girl. He asks her about herself and shows interest in whatever she chatters about, even if it’s how mad she is at her “ex”-boyfriend for going on his fishing trip instead of taking her to this party. If she seems to take offense at anything he says or does, he quickly apologizes. When she asks him questions, he answers honestly, so she can really get to know him. When she seems about to leave, he asks for her number or invites her on a date, making it clear that it would be a real honor if she said yes.

B) The way those nasty game bloggers taught him: He chats up her posse first, and negs her when she starts looking to get the attention back on her. When she hints that she’d like a drink, he says he’ll buy the second round, and tells her what drink he wants while she’s going. When they move, he puts his hand lightly on her elbow or lower back to steer her, and touches her whenever it feels natural. He leans over her, staying just inside her comfort zone. If she starts chattering about herself, he gets bored and looks around, or just says, “Man, do you always talk this much?” If she seems to take offense at anything he says or does, he just grins, or doubles down by expanding on it. When she asks him questions about himself, he gives ridiculous answers or refuses to answer. He goes for the kiss, if not more, before they part that night. If he wants her number, he says something like, “Here, put your number in my phone so we can talk again,” implying that they both want to. He’s saying it’s a good idea, not asking for a favor.

Now, neither of these approaches will guarantee success. But which makes it more likely that he will get somewhere with her? If you say B, then you’ve just admitted that game works. it doesn’t matter if B only increases his odds from 1% to 10%; that’s all anyone said it would do, was increase it. You can only claim game doesn’t work if you think A will work at least as often as B.

Another thought: if a guy learns to do B and really be comfortable with it, is he a “nerd” anymore?

As a n early 30’s guy I stumbled upon game after trying to figure out why my relationships (or attempted relationships) went nowhere while the so-called jerks (as labelled by women) got all the girls. Society has tried to impose an unnatural ideal of what women and men are supposed to be and want, and we regurgitate it. I was living in the Matrix but knew something wasn’t quite right. Through my own limited research I discovered that what women said they wanted and what they actually seemed to go for were two different things. They constantly described beta males as their ideal but always fell for the alpha males. At the time I didn’t know the terminology but I knew the difference. I went online to figure out why there was this disconnect and stumbled upon the manosphere. Everything I vaguely suspected in the back of my mind but never dared say out loud seemed confirmed. I discovered that I was the consumate beta and things started to make sense. I’m just starting out in this journey towards alphadom and I have already seen changes in how women react to me. I have empirical evidence that “game” works. It’s not because it’s a trick to manipulate women, although some men treat it as such. Game works because it is what women are biologically programmed to want.

I think there’s a woman’s version of game as well. There are things guys are programmed to want as well (not just sex), and the women that have it are the ones that get all the attention.

I see there has been some debate about physical attraction and game. There is definitely a physical aspect to game, but those that rely only on that aspect are one dimensional and will not keep a woman past the initial fling. If that’s all you’re going for, then that’s all you need, but you can up your game beyond just appearance by becoming a real man.

That’s my two cents. Thanks for the blog and waking me up to the possibilities.

I’m actually going to lean into the strawman here and say that a nerdy guy with game DOES have a shot with a hot woman – a better shot than he had with blue-pill oneitis-based sniper game or a defeatist attitude that she’d never be interested in him. As much as we have this view of women as mercenary and seeking ever high doses of stimulating alpha – and that’s what modern feminism has trained a lot of women into – you have to remember that there are lots of women who are basically insecure (women themselves tell me it’s a very high percentage), and if learning some game can provide some sense of security to her life (a good 50% of classic game instruction is comfort skills), she might make herself yours. Not every girl needs an investment-banker level of alphatude to get saucy for him.

Danger and Play (fairly crass site) had a post on this earlier this week, noting that plenty of attractive women (even in places like LA) are with guys you wouldn’t think are any better than yourself, simply because they got there at the right time.

So no, I don’t see legions of pasty redditors bagging the hottest women in Manhattan (and no serious game writer has ever suggested that so it is a strawman you want to believe because it allows you to reject game writ large), but you never want to rule the possibility out in your own particular case. After all, a nerdy guy with no game isn’t going to get ANY woman, and if game gives him the confidence to approach the girl he’s interested in, it might be enough to make it work. I wrote a post on this – you shouldn’t shy away from someone you’re interested in, because you never know if you are exactly what she happens to be looking for.

“We’ve seen that large hordes of men will reject any sort of challenge to the fem-centric narrative – conservatives because it upsets their tradcon values of hearth and home and virtuous women civilizing brutish men, liberals because it offends their egalitarian values and blank-slate political correctness.”

This is brilliant Badger. Many don’t understand that both the left and the right have long been serving the feminine imperative.

A sidebar question – would someone mind giving me a very brief definition of “feminine imperative”? I only read Rollo’s blog once in a while, and when I searched it for feminine imperative, there was quite a lot of material to dig through.

It has occured to me that the reason I cannot quite see the efficacy of Game is that I do it – instinctively – all the time, and thus cannot see what else more I can do to achieve success with women – any extra gaming would be over-kill.

Since my previous message I have been on the phone to my some-time girlfreind and I was saying how off-hand I always am to the lady from the Salvation Army; never give her any money but always have something different to say to her – never plan it in advance, and how she ignores my friend (who does give her money) and is fascinated frequently by the fact that my jacket is entirely fraid and full of holes (air -conditioning – as I point out). My girlfriend says that it must be because rather than merely giving her money and then ignoring her, I treat her as a real person. I guess I puzzle her. The amount of Game to use does seem to depend very much on the person. Cheeky Game can work but on many people it will backfire, especially if the woman has decided in advance that she hates you, in which case there is little you can do, but Roissy et al always advise not wasting time and effort on hopeless cases. Different people use different approaches. If you are good-looking and tall, you don’t need to try too hard, and a little Game is useful: if you are short and fat, ingratiating yourself and literally charming the birds out of the trees works better.

I also wonder whether this is a cultural thing: in short I wonder whether Americans are well-mannered and more courteous – to their disadvantage, whereas us English although are always understated and come across as totally insincere. ;)

You may be right. I’ve suspected before that the men who have the hardest time seeing the point of game, or even understanding what it is, are the ones who do it naturally. David Deangelo talked once about how when you point these things out to natural alphas, their response is, “C’mon, everybody knows that!”

That’s great — no reason all guys have to suffer and work hard at this stuff, and naturals give the rest of us examples to observe and take notes from. It only gets annoying when they insist that game is unnecessary or doesn’t exist, because it’s so automatic to them that they don’t see it. Trust us, many of us really don’t get this stuff naturally, so game really does exist for us, and it’s necessary. It’s as obvious to us as it is invisible to you.

@22 to 28–
Exactly. A lot of guys believe they have to go out and blow a lot of money on women for a dinner out. I too have had similar conversations with women my age, late 20s early 30s, and they say basically what the girl in your example I said. My rebuttal is always “You pretty much know if you like a guy immediately and if you are interested in dating him or having sex with him, right?”. “Yes”. “So if you like the guy, do you really care if he takes you to IHOP or Mc-E-Dees or a super nice restaurant? You’re going to date or have sex with him anyway”. They hate to admit it but they finally do. “Well, why should I or any other guy waste a lot of money then because if a guy does take you out and spends $100 on a meal, it’s not going to change your perspective anyway”. If any of you are familiar with Tom Leykis, he preaches a $40 date rule.

@badger–“…you shouldn’t shy away from someone you’re interested in, because you never know if you are exactly what she happens to be looking for.”

Amen. Words to live by. I’ve always been outgoing and can carry a room. Before I was married I would just talk to any girl I found interesting. You really do not know what they are into until you talk to them. My advice is to not talk yourself out of it and to just go for it. Remember, women are humans too and if they reject you, so what? They’res more of ‘em out there.

@Opus The point of game is hypergamy, ie pulling better than you would have been able to otherwise. It doesn’t mean that nerds will get 10s (though I’ve seen that happen). What it does mean is that you’ll be able to punch well above your weight, as I’ve been able to do

It’s good this generation of young adults/men have these new internet resources at their disposal to at least to create some kind of counter to early 21st century modern American (feminist) women. More importantly I can only pray it shows these young women their game is up.

Unfortunately I came of age in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s where no such shared knowledge existed in the form I see here. Men who were players always credited their own egos i.e. “I’m just that good”.

There was little to no mention of observations seen in your ‘man-sphere’ website here.

Look at it this way… if it’s possible for a man to “turn off” the women he meets by the way he talks and acts around them, then is it not possible that there exists a set of behaviors and mannerisms that just might have the opposite effect on them?

At the very least, if a man just understands what the “turn off” behaviors are and manages to avoid them, he will improve his chances quite a bit.

“(Women) think men have a duty to man up and marry a woman once she has had sex with enough other men, and believe that men have a duty to act as a traditional protector and provider (but not head of household) so their wife can decide if she wants to have a career or stay at home.

Now the majority of women are spending a decade after coming of age sexually pursuing a small percentage of the most attractive men. When given the choice, young women have overwhelmingly chosen hookups over commitment”

This is tragically spot on Dalrock. I want to send it as an advertisement to the Facebook of every 18-25 year old girl in the West.

I feel like weeping for the false paradigm that this form of feminism has plagued our society with.

What can we do? Dylan Thomas had it right in another context:

Do not go gentle into that good night…
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

BadgerThis was oft discussed at Susan Walsh’s blog, women insisting that game was creating a new legion of sadistic cads hungry to abuse women.

Applying my new rule, Badger, this simplifies to: “Hussies insisted that game was making men act like Hussies”. Another clear case of women projecting their own bad behavior onto men.

I argued vociferously that young women’s voracious consumption of boorish alpha males and rejection of gentle betas (labeled “creepers” among other heavy insults) was in fact what was creating a new stripe of men who don’t care about women, as they learned to either ape the behaviors that get the alpha males the desperately-desired sexual attention, or they learn to live without women entirely.

In other words, you pissed to windward. Telling people who are into using other humans as objects “Y’know, you’re using other humans as objects” doesn’t generally win you many friends. So how did that turn out ? Without even looking at the thread, I hazard the guess that the Hussies tuned you out , or attempted to drown you out, and Walsh tut-tutted but didn’t actually admit anything you said was accurate. Rather a NO-OP, in other words.

Aspects of game have been almost uniquely present in many American screen characters for as long as I can remember, long before game became articulated as it is now – and it has also been Americans who have done the articulating. The audience is near exclusively American.

Looking at it from another culture (NZ) it seems like a grand obsession – like the Romans experienced when watching the Jews argue over their religion. And it’s not just limited to game, but to the entire relationship ritual. ‘Dating’, as it was presented by American media from the 50s onward, has been equally bizarre. No – it was much, much weirder.

Cail and Badger are great minds indeed as one said of the other, and so are many others who have checked in as well as our sponsor, Dalrock himself. To take note of Opus, Infowarrior, 3MM, Empathologism, Leap, Zorro, Alpha Mission, sunshine mary and ybm by name is not to slight all others, whose contributions I savor. And possibly deti and Mark Minter may happen by anon.

I am so jealous of younger guys. At least an answer is out there somewhere. Even if nobody told you about Game, there’s a good chance you can find it yourself on the Internet.

Back when I was in college in the 90’s, there was nothing. I was following the script of bust your ass and get ahead in life. The number of women that strategy was effective with was approximately zero. I was following the script of my father and his generation, any by any measure I was very successful. Why didn’t it get any girls???

I knew there was an answer somewhere, that something was wrong. I started to have more success with women of post-marriageable age (28+) as I continued to have a good career track and my own SMV increased, but it was still clear to me that something was wrong. I didn’t really start figure it out until I read “The Game” book about all the PUAs in Project Hollywood. After that I found the manosphere.

But all this stuff didn’t exist until about eight years ago. I spent my twenties with girls who were obviously below my league or grinding periods of incelibacy. Today, any young guy with an internet connection can get an honest and complete answer of what makes women tick.

I’m 46. I discovered the newsgroup alt.seduction.fast about 1999. Before that, other than sex I paid for, I had had a long-term relationship with one woman, who blimped up about 100 pounds, starting from a reasonable, if not ideal, weight; and I’d ended up married to a woman who was cuter, and took better case of her appearance, but was intellectually not nearly my equal, and who had some other issues. The first of those relationships started when I was 23; I was almost entirely involuntarily celibate before that. Soon after I internalized some of the basic principles behind the advice on alt.seduction.fast, I was able to do much better than that – I went on a bit of a spree, and for a little while was juggling 4 simultaneous sexual relationships. Things have settled down since then. Almost all the women I ended up with since then were better catches than the first girlfriend or the first wife, even though none are 10s. Most of the women I’ve been with have been about equal, or one point above, my own rating.

However, Game is *hard* for me. It’s not my natural way of being, and that’s not due to the feminist or Catholic conditioning of my early years. (Well, maybe a little.) I know that if I wanted to, I could put a lot of work into becoming more of a Gamesman, and have relationships with women significantly hotter than me. Maybe not 10s, but close. But it’s just too much work for me – I am *not* a “natural”. So I keep the Game turned up just enough to keep the relationships I have going.

A few points that deserve to get made, as I see some stuff about game and promiscuity:

1. Game is not necessarily about promiscuity, but I am glib in saying that; most guys get into game because they want to have sex. It’s a base, and at times all-consuming, motivation for young testosterized men. Another group is married/LTR people who get into game to improve their relationships with their wives, usually for more sex but often for the collateral benefits of a less quarrelsome home.

2. In the West, only an extreme minority of people have 0 or 1 sexual partners throughout their lives. Western society is already promiscuous; game is just a way to get a better deal for the promiscuity society already sanctions. IOW we’ve established what society is, game is just haggling over the price. To say game is bad because it involves promiscuity is sort of looking at the finger instead of the moon.

3. I have made this point many times at HUS, on my blog and other places: most guys who get into game are not trying to get the highest notch count possible – most guys are jealous of their player friends’ abilities with girls, but don’t necessarily want to be them. They want to be able to get a girlfriend, keep her, get a new one if she doesn’t work out, and keep their future wife sexually interested in them. Most guys do not want to be tomcats all their lives and desire a partner and family. This has been surveyed and researched fairly conclusively.

Speaking as one of those guys, the problem from our side is that women seem to be specifically attracted to men who don’t want to commit, and so the commitment-minded men find they have to put on a show of non-commitment to attain a woman’s interest. Now women complain about screening “fake assholes” in additional to real ones; that’s their own problem as far as I’m concerned.

A good dose of game gives these men that sense of control over their own sexual fate, that they don’t have to be at the mercy of their woman’s choices and out if the cold if she loses interest. In fact, many men who get into game specifically to bang a lot of women find they get bored with that, and look instead for one high-quality woman they can depend on instead of a series of floozies. Cf. Anthony above, he has no intrinsic interest in being a dominator or a player, he tolerates enough game to keep his relationships going.

3b. To this point, I agree with J R: “I think the Roissysphere debate has become sterile and needlessly polemical.” Roissy is an affected intellectual, and his geosexualpolitics are interesting if you’re into that sort of thing, but most guys don’t give a crap beyond the game basics he is continually pointing out. This is one place where Athol Kay’s work is outstanding by contrast: he’s a practical realist, and doesn’t spend a lot of time waxing philosophic. There is a certain point beyond which arguing all this stuff on the Internet is beta – you gotta get out and live your real life. You’ve seen a lot of good Manosphere writers fold up in the last few weeks, this is one big reason it’s happened.

Note that before the Internet, it would have been nearly impossible for a man to learn what are now known concepts in the androsphere.

My point is, by 2016, it will not be possible to be a fence-sitter, particularly among younger men. One will either have to lean red-pill or lean blue-pill. And it will take *effort* to remain blue-pill, rather than that being the automatic default.

By 2016, a man who hasn’t even Googled about anti-male laws, OR about Game, is pretty incurious…

I waver between two opposite viewpoints, and am constantly trying to resolve them: that game is rapidly going mainstream, and that game will never go mainstream because the majority of men don’t want to accept it for whatever reason.

I have given considerable thought to this. My conclusions are :

1) 80% of men and 99% of women just cannot ever, ever comprehend Game. They refuse to believe that doing well with women is a learnable skill, that improves with practice.

2) At the same time, one active PUA denies several (say, 10) pedestalizers of what little scraps they were getting. The phenomenon of manginas/whiteknights doubling down on their pedestalization since the start of 2010 is directly due other men practicing Game.

Hence, while most men can’t get Game, it is very asymmetrical, and just a small percentage of men practicing Game changes the male-female dynamic of a society greatly.

I’m actually going to lean into the strawman here and say that a nerdy guy with game DOES have a shot with a hot woman – a better shot than he had with blue-pill oneitis-based sniper game or a defeatist attitude that she’d never be interested in him.

Of course. It is about net improvement.

Also, those who debate against Game tend to insist that Game has no value in LTRs (despite at least two prominent bloggers devoted to this), revealing that they haven’t really understood what Game is.

“the problem from our side is that women seem to be specifically attracted to men who don’t want to commit, and so the commitment-minded men find they have to put on a show of non-commitment to attain a woman’s interest. Now women complain about screening “fake assholes” in additional to real ones; that’s their own problem as far as I’m concerned.”

Yep, but it is what it is. Women like what they like, and they’re not going to change.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and it’s their choices that ultimately drive the sexual marketplace. Whatever type of man women choose to sleep with, that’s what men will become, or at least that’s what they will try to become.

Women get more of what they sleep with, and less of what they LJBF. This rule cannot be broken.

A lot of men want women for a reason. Those reasons vary with the man, but they frequently believe that women are something that Game reveals them not to be. If you want someone to share your life and to have your back, and you then find out they will not be there for you if fortune doesn’t go your way…well that kicks out the foundations of any sane marriage.

If you have to constantly be displaying the Peacock feathers to stop her from running off with the boss at her office, then you start wondering what is the point of all this effort? I have friends and I don’t have to constantly perform some social dance to keep them. I can get sex, or pay for it, and if she cannot be trusted, then why would you want her standing behind you?

In the absence of a society that keeps in check the baser desires of women, and men, there really isn’t much point in trusting those who cannot be trusted. I used to believe the fairy tales about women, and now I don’t. It wasn’t a pleasant revelation.

I think Game is real because it corresponds to perceived reality. I just don’t see any point in acquiring what it promises to deliver.

Hey, newbie question. I run a small mechanical company, and as I have been reading these blogs for the last week or so, I keep thinking, this is something that could really help close a lot of bids. How to influence people and make new friends is spectacular, but I think Game may have an advantage. Any sights or blogs looking into this aspect of game?

Further, I note that Roissy-style game has only been tested in a fairly stable bureaucratic welfare state that is circling the drain ever so gently.

I wonder what variations will be necessarily for societies in crisis.

Who has the most canned goods?

The welfare state allows women to offload their poor decision making onto men through entitlements and marriage wealth redistribution laws. Obviously things will change if the social environment changes, but I cannot blame guys like Roissy for making the best of a bad situation. Asking men to constantly shoulder the burden of more and more fiscal idiocy and poor decisions only enables worse behavior. People will do what succeeds. If women flocked after men wearing giant pink fluffy hats, you would see men sporting those same hats within days, or weeks. Obviously something superficial like clothing will be more easily adopted, or discarded than something like love and marriage. Sooner or later, however, men will adapt.

The problem is that to execute ‘game’, men either have to procure social dominance through social status via acquiring a life style (scarce and requires hard work and commitment) or becoming thugs (abundant and easy)

Given the principle of ‘the path of least resistance’ it is obvious that maximum utility is to be gained through becoming a thug. Whiskey predicted an avalanche of the chav culture and I can’t fail that logic.

>I think Game is real because it corresponds to perceived reality. I just don’t see any point in acquiring what it promises to deliver.

I heartily agree

Then the two of you should embrace MGTOW, and leave the discussion of how a man should lead his woman to those that know what they are on about. Seriously. Defeating strawmen, whining about aspects of reality you can’t change, noodling with doomer-porn, all may be fun for you, but get boring for the problem-solving-oriented.

BadgerSpeaking as one of those guys, the problem from our side is that women seem to be specifically attracted to men who don’t want to commit, and so the commitment-minded men find they have to put on a show of non-commitment to attain a woman’s interest. Now women complain about screening “fake assholes” in additional to real ones; that’s their own problem as far as I’m concerned.

Yup. This is the customer complaining because she got exactly what she ordered, which wasn’t exactly what she thought she wanted when she wanted it. “Careful what you wish for…”

“Omega” males are the scum class as well as the sexually deviant class. These are the bad-boys and these are also the guys who have multiple sex partners. A key characteristic of Omega males is that they cannot form stable relationships. They are not powerful like Alpha males. They might get lots of girls, but essentially they are powerless in society and have little real respect from those around them – especially other males. Girls may screw them, but girls don’t stay with them. Not having the respect of other males makes them socially powerless, and this is the key to why they are not Alpha males.

“Zeta” males are weak-willed males. They rarely get sex and when they do, they are ruthlessly manipulated and exploited by women.

When the game community talks “Alpha” they are really describing “Omega” and when they say “Beta” they are really describing “Zeta.” The proper references to Real Alphas and Real Betas are missing.

Comment: The self-proclaimed “game” masters are not necessarily getting as much sex as they claim, but some of them are. The ones who actually *achieve* successful promiscuity call themselves Alphas, but would be properly called Omegas.

While some married men have had some success at applying “game” insights to enhance married life, their efforts are a rear-guard action at best.

To quote the conclusion of the linked source:
You still have to live in the times you are presented with until natural forces once again over-rule synthetic ones. In the mean time you have to survive and see that your needs are still met. And so it is in the sexual marketplace of today, where men have to adjust their behaviour to ensure their needs are met, and thus certain aspects of game are indeed advisable to utilize. Perhaps the term Ethical Omegas ought to be created. It is unadvisable to pair-bond in our current political climate and yet men’s need for sex is very real and cannot be denied, thus men ought to make sure that their needs are met while protecting themselves as much as possible – therefore it is indeed wise to emulate certain Omega traits such as avoiding “one-itis.” But, in the back of one’s mind, it would probably be wise to remember that we are living in the times of a false sexual economy and eventually natural forces will overwhelm the synthetic ones. Natural forces have a habit of doing that.

Comment: If any Western married man claims that he knows how to “lead his woman,” that claim is in perpetual danger of being disproved by the divorce courts. No amount of psychological posturing will undo the larger social dangers of dysfunctional legal systems.

The solution is not necessarily MGTOW. The solution might very well be a non-individualistic return to a social order that sacrifices personal freedoms for the greater good. There are various competing visions of such a society. An organic farmer might deliver something that looks like “Mind Weapons in Ragnarok,” an Orthosphere stalwart might deliver a monarchistic, pseudo-medieval Christian church, and a Mormon might deliver a society that looks like Utah.

>Rather than try to convince a fool that he is a fool, it is better to laugh at him and point at him in order to convince others of what folly looks like.

Is mockery the *only* way to oppose wrong-headed thinking? Would it be entirely out of the question to formalize arguments from shared axioms? If the participants in a discussion don’t share any axioms, there is no debate as such, just verbal jousting.

I think I would argue with some parts of this post. The socially dominant Alpha’s have clearly endorsed feminism in our society. They themselves may not behave in a manner that takes advantage of the sexual revolution, recognizing its counter-productive effects, but they don’t seem to have any problem with it being dominant within our culture. So they are in some way ‘screwing over the multitude of men whose cooperation they need in order to accomplish things’.

I suspect a lot of those who are seen as Alpha’s are accorded that status due to their success with women. They may not be socially Alpha, but certainly emulate enough traits that they are attractive to women. The dead broke garage band member is a case in point. This probably has more to do with his violating social mores which seems transgressive and bolder, which gives the false impression that he is socially dominant, rather than the reality that he has little investment in society in general.

Dalrock: Even if you aren’t able or interested in joining the small group of men, the truth of game will be in front of you every day.

And it still won’t matter to 80-90% of men. Why? because…

“We are prone to see what lies behind our eyes rather than what appears before them.”
-Beveridge

“People are disturbed not by things but by the views that they take of them.”
-Epictitus

“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Behavioral conditioning, including but not limited to learned helplessness and shame responses, is just too strong. And reinforcing that “nurture” component is also a strong “nature” component. That is to say, many men are simply natural betas who, unless they experience one or more nasty fem-based traumas -and- are exposed to just the right stimuli (i.e., fem-aware friend, manosphere, etc.) at the right time, are and will remain constitutionally opposed to “game” and much of the related knowledge. Again, this is some 80-90% of men. Even if it is right in front of their eyes, they will deny it, not want to believe it, and in many cases work actively against it (i.e., so-cons).

This is why mass movements a la MRM will never succeed until there is a society-wide crash-and-burn. And even then they will succeed only for a while, and not due to efforts on their part, but simply due to economics. Unless we are talking a new Dark Age, the genie is not going back in the bottle. As soon as things improve, expect the hypergamous groundhog to emerge from its burrow, sniff around a bit, and if it does not see its shadow (= economic and/or physical safety worries), get ready for spring again.

Yes, the information is now out there. Yes, the truth of hypergamy/game will be in men’s faces almost every waking day. But it still won’t matter until men are willing to look for and accept it.

“and you then find out they will not be there for you if fortune doesn’t go your way…well that kicks out the foundations of any sane marriage.”

Yep that where I’m at. Women are fair weather friends only. And you can’t be upbeat, cocky and arrogant your whole life. I’ve been kicked in the teeth enough by life to have some down times where I’m struggling to know that I’m not invulnerable and I’ll have periods of weakness. And in those times its just better not to have a woman around to kick you while your down. It just makes the recovery take longer.

The thing is I would prefer to be in long term relationships. But with women and the law the way they are you just can’t invest any money or hopes and dreams in a woman who will turn on you when you need her most. In Australia, with de-facto couple divorce settlements that means you can’t live with a woman. So the only utility of game for me is to find and keep casual girlfriends. It works, but the application is very limited for what I’m looking for.

Also its not failsafe like a good legal system is. If there were a dozen more Athols and Dalrocks I’d be wondering which ones wife would leave him first. No disrespect to these guys they are great but sooner or later life knocks you around. They have maximized their chances but with a larger sample size it would soon be proven that failure and life ruin of even the best men still has a pretty good chance of occurring.

MR. TID: Gentlemen, we have two basic suggestions for the design of this architectural block, the residential block, and I thought it best that the architects themselves came in to explain the advantages of both designs.

(knock knock knock knock knock knock knock knock knock knock)

That must be the first architect now. Ah, yes. It’s Mr. Wiggin of Ironside and Malone.

MR. WIGGIN: Good morning, gentlemen. Uh, this is a twelve-storey block combining classical neo-Georgian features with all the advantages of modern design. Uhh, the tenants arrive in the entrance hall here, are carried along the corridor on a conveyor belt in extreme comfort and past murals depicting Mediterranean scenes, towards the rotating knives. The last twenty feet of the corridor are heavily soundproofed. The blood pours down these chutes and the mangled flesh slurps into these large contai–

CITY GENT #1: Excuse me.

MR. WIGGIN: Hmm?

CITY GENT #1: Uh, did you say ‘knives’?

MR. WIGGIN: Uh, rotating knives. Yes.

CITY GENT #2: Are you, uh, proposing to slaughter our tenants?

MR. WIGGIN: Does that not fit in with your plans?

CITY GENT #1: No, it does not. Uh, we– we wanted a… simple… block of flats.

MR. WIGGIN: Mind you, this is a real beaut. I mean, none of your blood caked on the walls and flesh flying out of the windows inconveniencing passers-by with this one. I mean, my life has been building up to this.

CITY GENT #2: Yes, and well done, huh, but we did want a block of flats.

MR. WIGGIN: Well, may I ask you to reconsider? I mean, you wouldn’t regret it. Think of the tourist trade.

CITY GENT #1: No, no, it’s– it’s just that we wanted a block of flats and not an abattoir.

The concepts of ‘Game’ horrify most people in SWPL culture because of it’s take on raw human nature. The fact is that the current SMP has made it necessary for men to face brutal truths about our very selfish primal instincts and these instincts aren’t very pretty. Whereas the previous generations could get by living in fairy tale land where the women just instrinsicly loved their husbands simply for their husbands fulfilling their duties to the family and society, the forces of unleashed hypergamy has made that not an option for today’s youth. If they want any type of success with simply their equals when they are in their early 20s where the power balance greatly favors the women, they must be compentent in a woman’s pyschology.

The major problem is that ‘Game’ is at it’s core unromantic, it’s a pursuit of achieving a goal by most any means possible. Women are a puzzle to simply crack. At first glance to most people it’s just down right sociopathic. What these same people don’t understand is that almost all our interacts with the vast majority people in this world boils down to very strict power imbalances. Our dealings with fellow human beings are power grabs when stripped down to their core. The pretty girl is valuable commodity that knows her worth and wants to hear the best sales pitch. How many people are against a salesman making a tip top powerpoint presentation with all the bells and whistles to win a big contract? It’s the same concept. You’re giving a presentation of the awesomeness of yourself to the prespective buyer. Also in the process, a person that interalizes ‘Game’ almost has to become much more masculine and tap into his God given masculine potential. So a synergy happens, as the person sells more, he starts to become more like the product that claims to be.

It seems that anti game guys fall on this board fall into:

1) Opus: Smug Natural: “You guys are losers. Why would you need to learn how to be good with women? That should happen naturally.”

2) JohnyComeLately: Moralists: ” It’s so immoral. You should never have to sell yourself. The woman should be a natural Mother Theresa. She should want nice guys. This is stupid. You shouldn’t have to join the Crips or Bloods or own Corporate empires. Hot women should want men that work a job that earns a decent salary just like the olden days”

I also think that some people don’t realize the make up of some of these guys that learn ‘Game’. It’s not just D&D nerds. It’s for anybody that was brainwashed into behaving in a way that they shouldn’t. There are good looking guys that have social skills but suck with women. There are evangelical Christians that are have good attributes in terms of job, looks, morals, etc, but really thought that either women are basically good or that Christian women aren’t like any of these other evil women.

Women are fair weather friends only. And you can’t be upbeat, cocky and arrogant your whole life. I’ve been kicked in the teeth enough by life to have some down times where I’m struggling to know that I’m not invulnerable and I’ll have periods of weakness. And in those times its just better not to have a woman around to kick you while your down.

Exactly. I wouldn’t put up with that behavior from a casual friend, and to expect even less from your own wife is simply bizarre to me. No one goes through life without taking a few knocks. I don’t want to sleep with someone I can’t trust.

Also its not failsafe like a good legal system is. If there were a dozen more Athols and Dalrocks I’d be wondering which ones wife would leave him first. No disrespect to these guys they are great but sooner or later life knocks you around. They have maximized their chances but with a larger sample size it would soon be proven that failure and life ruin of even the best men still has a pretty good chance of occurring.

Even if they don’t, you also have to consider what your chances are of staying married, what are you risking in taking that chance, what staying married gives you, and what you actually get out of it if all goes well.

A 50% divorce rate is just the beginning, because some marriages are terrible. What are the conditions of the marriage and who are you marrying? A 32 year old who has slept with the football team and still pines for THE ONE from her younger days isn’t much of a bargain even if she decides to stick it out with her walking wallet of a husband.

My interest is strictly in LTR stuff. I’ve no particular use for Players and the Hookup scene. At best, they’re just creating trouble, so whether Party Paul can get an 8 instead of a 6 is completely irrelevant to me. But LTR Game is really important, it’s what civilization is based on. But by “Game” I don’t mean cheap tricks, what some call “Outer Game.” I mean “Inner Game” where guys have an inner self-confidence and basic approach to the world that women respond to. “Outer Game” can be a step on the road there, but it’s a poor destination.

And in LTR Game, the question isn’t how hot a chick you can pull, but whether you can keep her once you’ve pulled her. Can you maintain the love and respect of your wife for 6+ decades? If so, the odds are that you’ll produce a functional set of grandkids who are fit to inheret civilization. Since you were attractive enough to her at one time to get her attention, and since men’s SMV peaks later than womens and declines more slowly with age, there’s no good reason for a guy to become less attractive to his wife after marriage.

The reason it happens so often nowadays is that guys are not taught the concepts of Game, which used to be known as “How to handle a woman.” Those old films Cail mentioned are great. You watch an old Bogey and Bacall movie and a “modern” guy might be tempted to think “yeah riiiiight, some middle-aged guy with a sad-sack mug is going to get a 19-year old hottie like her.” But, y’know, he did it in real life. He was over twice her age when they got married. Stayed married until his death 11 years later. Had two or three kids together. Sure, he was rich and famous, but so was she.

In the context of LTRs, knowing how to handle a woman – knowing game – gives you a chance to stay happily married, to raise your kids, and not have to fight with your ex over who get’s the kids for Christmas this year. If you don’t understand it, then you’re subject to the feminist disinformation, which will cause you to behave in way that turn off women and ruin your sex life and your marriage.

Remember, the upshot of hypergamy is that a woman would rather be a member of a DHV winner’s harem than the sole wife of a DLV loser. Men approach the market by assigning numbers (“she’s an 8, she’s a 5, she’s a 7…”) Women approach it by assinging “Yes” or “No.” Yes, she’ll accept this guy, no, she won’t accept that guy. So the real value of Game is keeping your head above water, keeping yourself on the “Yes” side of the equation. Your goal as a guy isn’t to be a 10, it’s to be a Yes.

He got married on Sunday. Geoff is a SC2 community stalwart, having been a top USA player in the game Starcraft Brood Wars (SC1). He’s a Nerd’s nerd, but he also has a kinetic personality and is really great on camera. (See his commercial with Kingston’s RAM division here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UZxcXw90Zo )

Not every Nerd can get a 10. But a Nerd doesn’t have to be a dweeb either.

Side point: after really getting a solid understanding of the reaction kinetics from my time in the manosphere, there was another Starcraft 2 incident that left me in stitches. It was actually an interview about a year ago. The interviewer for G4 (a TV station/website for this type of content) was practically ready to make puppies on camera with the guy she was interviewing. I’ve never seen “smitten” so well, in real-time, as I did in that interview. They got engaged a few months after that.

link between MRA and gamesphere is tenuous as best, and declining with time.

Indeed. My theory is that you’ve got Alphas, Beta’s, and Gammas. Alphas basically have an innate, unconscious understanding of Game. It comes naturally to them. Betas have all the necessary attributes, and if taught the concepts, can behave in a manner attractive to women – can be a “Yes.” But absent that teaching, they tend to slip into “No” territory.

Gammas on the other hand I think are men with female brains. At some critical point in their development, the right hormones or enzymes weren’t present, and they ended up with a brain that thinks like a woman’s. They demonstrate all the characteristics of feminine thinking – the primary one being a lack of desire to be responsible for their own fate. Reading a bunch of MRA types sharing stories of how they were screwed over by the courts is painful. I feel for the injustice these guys have suffered, but often when someone responds to their stories by suggesting concrete actions these guys could take, it’s met with overwhelming rejection, condemnation of the guy offering the advice, and a rapid return to complaining about the situation. Reminds me of the classic woman who gets annoyed at her boyfried for offering solutions to problems when all she really wants to do is complain about them. And have someone else fix them. These are Leap of a Beta‘s “victims and haters.” He nails their characteristics.

That struck me reading a Dr. Helen post a while back. The MRA types were not interested in what they personally could do to improve their situation. They wanted someone else to ride in, solve their problems, and give them the happiness they deserved. It was like a flashbulb going off – these are feminine thought patterns. And that’s what separates a gamma from a beta in my book. A beta is capable of implementing a MAP like Athol suggests, but a gamma would rather be validated in their victimhood and wait for some Hero to save them.

Game is what you do when you’re willing to be responsible for your own happiness in your relationships, when you are willing to run a MAP. The split between Game and MRA is the natural result of the gammas declining to take personal responsibility for their lives and intead banding together in a group to beseech someone else to grant them favors. They’re rejecting the risk and reward of the MAP and opting instead for the comfort of uniform misery and subjugation.

What these same people don’t understand is that almost all our interacts with the vast majority people in this world boils down to very strict power imbalances. Our dealings with fellow human beings are power grabs when stripped down to their core.

I can trust my friends.
I can trust my business partners.

Hell, I can trust a hooker to deliver on what’s promised more faithfully than a wife.

The pretty girl is valuable commodity that knows her worth and wants to hear the best sales pitch. How many people are against a salesman making a tip top powerpoint presentation with all the bells and whistles to win a big contract? It’s the same concept.

I am not giving the salesman my bank accounts, nor am I signing a contract that has a 50% failure rate, and it is entirely up to him to determine the quality and quantity of goods he delivers on that contract. In addition he can also invalidate the contract at any time, and I am financially liable for his bailing on the contract, and required to give him half or more of everything I have if he chooses to walk.

Jack: A yes can still lose out in the end. What about when an ‘oh god yes please’ comes along… Once I understood hypergamy it just wasn’t worth it anymore. I could do it but not with these laws, the risk is too high. No one wants to address what you do when life knocks you down and your woman turns on you over that. With the economy the way it is life is going to knock a lot of people down over the coming years…

Sharrukin: Yeah mate you don’t need to tell me how much being married can suck. The worst part is you can’t even be sure what your getting, even after years with a woman. They can turn on you once they get that legal power. My wife was to stupid too wait until she locked me in with children, I’m thankful for small mercies. It cost me a lot but would have been cheap at twice the price. Peace of mind and having a castle to retreat too at the end of the day really is priceless.

The KGB is vetting 3 candidates to be agents. They are run through various interviews, aptitude tests, and psychological evaluations. As a final test, the candidates are instructed to come for a final interview and to bring their wives.

The first candidate is 26 years old and is a young newlywed. His wife remains in the waiting and he is called into the interview room.

The interviewer says “To be an agent with the KGB, your loyalties to Russia must be foremost and unquestionable. We may ask you to do things that seem objectionable to you. And we need to know that you will be able to do them.”

He placed a pistol on the table in front of the candidate and says “We wish you to take this pistol, go into the waiting and shoot your wife.”

The candidate immediately responds, “I cannot do that. I’m sorry. She is my soulmate and I would rather die than be without her.”

The interview is terminated and he leaves with his wife.

The second candidate arrives with his wife. He is 33 years old and he has been married 7 years. He and his wife have two small children. The candidate is brought into the interview room, given the same speech and instructions with the pistol placed on the table.

He thinks for a few moments and then says, “I love my children dearly. They need their mother so I cannot perform what you ask.”

The interview is terminated and he leaves with his wife.

The third candidate arrives with his wife. He is 48 years old and has been married 32 years. He is brought into the interview room and given the same speech and instructions with the pistol placed before him.

He takes the pistol off the table and goes into the waiting room. A shot is heard and then a repeated crashing of furniture and signs of a struggle.

He comes back into the interview room as says “Some idiot put blanks in the pistol.”

I’ve read the above comments both flattering and critical to myself (and looked at 3rd MM’s site as requested), and I must confess:

I do not always succeed, or get what I want, even when I lean forward and look directly into the woman’s eyes and say in my Latino accent (assumed for the purpose) ‘Darlink, you know you look maaaaaaaaaarvelous’. I then assume my aloof ‘I’m too sexy for my shirt’ attitude. If that doesn’t work, I proceed to stuff like – addressing her directly, ‘Some people think that I should like you for your mind, but frankly [pause] I’m not that shallow’. I ignore comments to my up-market buddies such as ‘why do you hang out with a loser like Opus’ and respond to women who feel the need to resort to physical violence against me with complete indifference.

In the main I find, they either like you at first sight or not at all, and if they do like you they will be making it pretty clear pretty soon.

I think a sub-set of the Game blogs (the personal journey pick-up blogs) are really helping. When men are writing about their attempts to implement Game, providing evidence, and then showing improvement over time….. it’s these personal stories that give the nerds and divorcees inspiration to try it themselves.

Personally, I think no more than 10% of men will ever get decent game. It’s a difficult skill to get to a decent level.

2.) Women shit testing you and how you must pass these shit tests to be seen as higher value. (her bringing up other guys, her testing your frame, her stiring the pot, her testing the boundaries)

3.) Approaching and asking for the number. (you cannot hit if you don’t swing, women want you to approach, the vast majority of men NEVER do it.)

Once I understood those three core concepts, I’ve been able to pull far hotter chicks on a much more consistent basis, which eventually leads you to a place that every man must be in order to feel comfortable in his skin around his hot girlfriend and thus be able to keep her…..A mentality of abundance.

Which is the ability to internalize the thought that if this chick i’m with dumps me, screws me over or withholds sex, I can replace her. It might take me a month or two to find someone else of equal sexual attractiveness, but I can replace her and she knows it. It is not a belief that can be faked, because a woman can smell a fraud.

And that my friends is game. And that is where you must be mentally in order to have a healthy and sexually active relationship. I’m still not convinced you can avoid divorce court though. The power of a woman’s hypergamey instinct can only be tamed so long.

The one hunter says to the other “all these deer have chronic wasting disease,I’m going out of state to find some clean meat.”
The second hunter says “You’re crazy man,you’ve just got to get more of them,and thanks for leaving the field,it makes my hunting a lot easier.”

@ sunshinemary “A sidebar question – would someone mind giving me a very brief definition of “feminine imperative”? I only read Rollo’s blog once in a while, and when I searched it for feminine imperative, there was quite a lot of material to dig through.”

In a nutshell SunshineMary, I would describe the Feminine Imperative as the tendency for women to define social rules and morality to meet strictly female needs. This probably could be considered a more nuanced and developed version of Team Woman. For example, the female preferred mating strategy is serial monogamy, and while they don’t want to commit themselves they want something holding the man on the hook. Behold, the new rules of sexual morality state that sex is moral only if there is consent, within the bounds of monogamy (but “you don’t own me!”) and only when “in love”. So long as the woman remains in love she wants to retain the relationship, so this isn’t actually a restriction on her.

Another less subtle manifestation of the feminine imperative is the assumed moral force beyond Women And Children First. Note how easily women contemplate the proper way men should die so that women can live (or even just have extra legroom in the lifeboat), without ever considering how unbelievably crass this is.

Part of what he describes is that this is automatic and relentless. It isn’t something women do consciously, they just tend to band together to rewrite the rules to favor the needs of women while presenting it as what is objectively moral.

Sun Shine Mary,
Nearly all of Rollo’s blog could be considered a definition of the feminine imperative. If needed, I’d boil it down thus:

The Feminine Imperative is the multitude of spoken or unspoken rules, societal norms, and expectations that are set in place to benefit women’s goals without any regard to men’s.

To go against the Feminine Imperative will either reap great rewards if done well – money, happiness, satisfaction, women. Or great harm in the form of legal issues, social ostracism, termination of employment, etc.

*The point of the post is not about whether the average man can learn enough game to pick up women, but that even those who can’t pick up women will still see the reality of male and female nature enough to explode the current conventional wisdom.

Part of the problem, and it’s related to the feminine imperative, is that the language has been completely hijacked by feminism. Rather successfully. The words “game” and “dominant” and “leadership” have been painted with a poisioned brush, and even though most women will RESPOND to those concepts, they are put off by the descriptors.

I see on my blog that women hate the idea of male “leadership”. I have been desribing my own relationship with my husband using the Captain/First Officer paradigm, but that comes from being a huge Trekkie!

We almost need to do a George Orwell and find different words, ones that haven’t been corrupted, to describe what game and dominance and leadership really mean. Well, not WE necessarily. I think having a different vocabulary would be useful for women when we are trying to talk to other women, especially younger women who only see abuse in the word “dominant”.

Wow. That woman’s a special kind of headcase Dalrock. I’ve stopped expecting women to feel bad about leaving a husband, but I don’t think I’ll ever be able to move past the lack of consideration or caring for the women’s children.

Hers are only a footnote to her. “I wanted kids, seemed like our relationship was pretty easy other than he having self esteem issues. It seemed right to get married before the first child was born.”

Then the rest of it is all about her, how he never satisfied her. Hell, the question of the boyfriend is almost another footnote to her rather than the main concern, “How do I make my eat pray love fantasy picture perfect by getting rid of this guilt from the man I chose my ending of eating, praying loving with!?”

Dalrock*The point of the post is not about whether the average man can learn enough game to pick up women, but that even those who can’t pick up women will still see the reality of male and female nature enough to explode the current conventional wisdom.

In other words, as more and more men put on the glasses and see reality, many who might have previously married will just go “ghost” / MGTOW. Fewer women will marry at all, either they will become part of an alpha harem, or they will become spinsters. Some will half-heartedly try lesbian living. All of them will be increasingly unhaaapy and searching for someone to blame it on. This will lead to more manUP screeching, but MGTOW / ghost type men simply won’t respond. They won’t talk back, they won’t argue, they won’t even pay attention. walking away from someone, flipping the bird over the shoulder, is not really a “response” in this context.

Perhaps the next stage of Men’s Rights Awareness (MRA) will take the form of ridicule. Ridicule of women who follow feminist doctrine right down a blind alley. Ridicule of “strong, independent” women who can’t change a tire. Heck, I even have an example:

I have never changed the tire of a feminist. Over the years, I’ve changed flat tires for some number of women, in cities, in parking lots, on the freeway 50 mile from nowhere. They were always profusely thankful. Some offered money, that I have always turned down (Boy Scout training).
And none of them were “strong, independent, capable” feminist women at that moment. Maybe before, or after, but not at the instant of standing by a vehicle that cannot go anywhere, with tools they could not use.

Q: “When is a feminist not a feminist?”
A: “When standing by the road with a flat tire.”

PS for DH: Yes, I know, you have a cell phone and a AAA fix-a-flat contract. So instead of relying on the kindness of strangers like me, you rely on the kindness of strangers who are part of a large organization set up by men just for people like you, for a fee. Same difference.

I will admit to being one of the older men that is accepting the manosphere. I will also say that it is truth that older men come to this realization more often than not because of divorce.

I am a bit different in that regard tho, I’m 42 and *I* divorced my wife because she was literally crazy and had sabotaged me and my leadership (thankfully we had no kids due to a health problem she was diagnosed with after we married). My marriage changed me from “churchanity morality crippled” greater beta/alpha to a lesser beta or worse. As I have rediscovered my greater beta/alpha self (a necessity of being dropped back in the SMP as a consumer) and shed the “churchanity” I find game makes navigating the SMP waters much easier….and my early success empirically speaks volumes.

I see two problems with older men. First, I feel like I was the victim of a double whammy of religion and society. I look back at my life and I can now see the hypergamy, even in my very conservative church where I was trying to find my traditional wife many, many years ago. I endured the tired line “you’re the kind of guy I want to marry, but not date” from “church girls” and the counseling I got from “Men of the Church” was resources on sexual purity and courtship better suited for the 50s when the women were also shamed/taught to be chaste. Yeah, I saw the “man up and marry that slut” very up close and personal…with 1/2 the group having been teenage moms that “made mistakes” and the rest wanting to “feel the freedom” society was feeding them and the church wasn’t shaming…just not getting pregnant seemed to be good enough.

Looking back on it, it may have had something to do with the daughters of a minister and couple of church leaders having children out of wedlock as teens / early 20s and then giving kids up for adoption or not marrying those cads when I was younger. Kind of poor for those men who mentored me to suggest their slutty daughters were OK for me and other high quality men. I’m seeing now 20 years on how that messed me up. I was paying the price and being punished for the sins of their daughters.

So, I men fighting two battles, one against Feminism and the other against Older Trad-Con men. Many whom are trying to redeem the sins of their hypergamous daughters. When I was a 21 year old I don’t know what kind of balls it would have taken for me to tell a 55 year old respected leader that I won’t accept his teachings and advice on marriage and dating because he is deluded with the shame of his 20 year old daughter getting knocked up by her college boyfriend, but I should maintain my sexual purity, corral my biological urgings, forgive the sluts and consider her good dating material because I am not forgiving and compassionate if I don’t.

PS for DH: Yes, I know, you have a cell phone and a AAA fix-a-flat contract. So instead of relying on the kindness of strangers like me, you rely on the kindness of strangers who are part of a large organization set up by men just for people like you, for a fee. Same difference.

I think the difference is that while the person who voluntarily stops and actually changes the tire could theoretically be a woman, in reality it almost never is. Whereas, for AAA fix a flat, it is a private company and therefore has to follow the rules of equal opportunity. This ensures that women aren’t discriminated against by the unfair process of who happens to get there first and has the willingness and ability to help. In the case of AAA therefore, it really could theoretically be a women. Of course in practice it almost never is, but in this case she is paying to have a man bridge her gap of basic knowledge instead of hoping a man does so voluntarily.

@ Dalrock
Thank you for the explanation. It seems to me there is a flaw in the concept of the feminine imperative, but that is almost certainly my own ignorance. However, if anyone wants to discuss it further, I will raise the topic on my own blog tomorrow so as to avoid derailing this thread any further.

“The point of the post is not about whether the average man can learn enough game to pick up women, but that even those who can’t pick up women will still see the reality of male and female nature enough to explode the current conventional wisdom.”

I think the answer is yes. It’s just that now and into the future, society in general and men in particular will have the terminology, theory and knowledge to identify and describe the goings-on in a given circumstance and the motivations of the participants.

What the manosphere describes has been going on for tens of thousands of years; it’s just that now people are rediscovering the ancient, immutable truths of human nature and how they operate in different types of social structures. We’re getting to see in real time how human nature responds and conducts itself when female hypergamy is unleashed. Women wanted two things: economic independence, which allows them to live their lives free of male supervision and to control and limit male participation; and sexual license, which allows judgment-free and consequence-free sex with who they want, when and where they want. Men have been seeing it for a long time. But before the advent of the Internet and the manosphere many men believed their experiences were unique, or that they were just doing it wrong, or were not “nice enough”.

What’s going to be interesting to me is not whether men will see the reality; but how the left, feminism and its theorists, the Churchians, and their useful manginas and white knights will continue attempting to obscure it. Much of the language and thought is already in place. Expect to see:

1. The Churchians to continue shaming men into strict observance of no premarital sex; while winking and nodding and looking the other way at female promiscuity. The Churchians will continue condemning, controlling and criminalizing male sexual conduct while excusing and facilitating that of females. The idea is that women want babies and that means they want families; so it’s no wonder that women are engaging in thug love. But men just want to go out and shag everything they see when what they should be doing is getting schooled and employed and married.

2. Feminists will move away from shaming “nice guys” to (a) ignoring them altogether; (b) identifying new ways to appropriate their labor (which will usually mean advocating for taxing them); and (c) agitation for criminal penalties against those lower sociosexual ranked men who resist further efforts to control them.

3. The view of marriage evolving away from a lifestyle choice and toward a civic duty, but only for men. For women, marriage or singlehood will simply be alternative ways to live life and one can be exchanged for the other at her whim and fancy. But for men, marriage and fatherhood are expected, even mandated by law or membership in certain organizations. A woman will be permitted to move in and out of marriage with no sanction whatever; a man will not.

I think you are right in your predictions Deti, and as you point out this is already under way. However, the feminine imperative requires subterfuge to be truly effective. Note how shocked women are when you point out what they are actually doing, stripping away the subterfuge. This is a weapon I continue to think is undervalued in the manosphere. A few men speaking the truth is devastating.

4. An insistence on survey and voluntary response social “science” as buttressing the conclusion that women are attracted to beta traits like loyalty, fidelity, honor, integrity, industriousness, etc. It’s not that women are ATTRACTED to these traits; it is that women DESIRE these traits in an attractive man.

That there might be confusion about the difference between “attractive” and “desirable” never occurs to their proponents. That the survey participants might be dishonest, either intentionally or not, about the truthfulness of their responses somehow doesn’t compute. That the survey participants might be saying what they think they should believe, or what they think others want to hear (instead of responding how they ACTUALLY believe), is swept under the rug.

5. An insistence that no generalizations can ever be made about female conduct. IOW, all these descriptions of negative female traits (indulgence of rampant hypergamy, lack of or underdeveloped insight into a woman’s own motivations, dishonesty; reasons behind wife cheating, tendency toward frivorce, etc.) are denigrated and dismissed as isolated anecdotes reported by disgruntled and disaffected men of low sociosexual rank. No conclusions can be drawn from any such anecdotes, regardless of how often the pattern is observed, the number of different unrelated men observing and reporting it, or the number of women in whom it is observed.

6. Men should be more attractive, but only for the purpose of preparing themselves to serve as dates, escorts, sex partners, boyfriends and husbands for the women who want them.

Expect the feminine imperative to fight tooth and nail to censor, malign and distort anything coming close to helping men become more aware of the machinations of feminine primacy. As a social force , women cannot afford a mass awareness of how that social force operates.

The most obvious manifestation of the feminine imperative is that men are excluded from any social debate about male-female relations. They can only enter these debates as basically auxiliaries of women, parroting the arguments that some prominent woman or women have already preapproved. If they voice their opinions in any other way, they become pariahs.

Look at the endless debates about abortion and women’s life choices about the workplace and motherhood (the ‘Mommy Wars’) – they’re all dominated by women. It’s essentially one prominent group of feminist women promoting the SAHD lifestyle (i.e. kitchen bitches) against a less prominent but still socially accepted group of tradcon women promoting the SAHM lifestyle. Men have no say. In women’s world they only exist as potential facilitators of female choices that need to be tolerated or potential saboteurs of female choices who need to be cut down by law. The end result is that the loudest proponents AND enemies of both feminism AND ‘traditional’ churchianity are women. The same fate awaits the MRM. It won’t gain any traction until some women show up to publicly support it, and it’s loudest enemies will also be women. Just wait and see. It’ll be bastardized and repackaged in order to serve women’s interests.

Nothing is exempt from the feminine imperative. It’s so forceful and pervasive that nobody besides dedicated PUAs or MGTOWs can even imagine what the masculine imperative’d look like. I’ve come to the conclusion that Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are the sides of the same coin designed to serve women and train men to be pawns. Marriage 1.0 was based on the lie that women are men’s moral equals. Marriage 2.0 is based on the lie that women are men’s intellectual equals. All that happened was that one lie was replaced by another in order to serve the feminine imperative.

7. Appropriation of Game lingo and terminology to serve the feminine imperative. “Dominance” doesn’t mean an ability to influence social situations or to impose one’s will on one’s own life, regardless of one’s educational level or salary. No, “dominance” means prestige and social standing, either monetary or through socioeconomic status. “Confidence” is being at ease with oneself in private and in public. Well, that’s something that EVERYONE, male and female like, can have; so “confidence” makes EVERYONE attractive, male and female alike.

Deti, how will all of that work against a man who goes his own way? i know men who live in campers or travel trailers, who do enough skilled labor to get by, and live as far under the radar as they can. Consider some 35 to 40 year old man who has been welding for 15 to 20 years – he can work in any of several kinds of metal shops anywhere, on or off the books, and then when he’s got itchy feet he can move on to some other job. Maybe caretaker of a game lease, or ranch doing skilled repair work on gates, fences, water systems, etc. Maybe work in the summer as a national forest “campground host”. Maybe work on some motorcycle accessory in the winter, and sell it at Sturgis. A man living in this kind of way is pretty close to going ghost – he won’t be in church to be shamed, he won’t earn enough income to be worth taxing all that much, he won’t be in one place long enough for the average middle-class conservative feminist to get her claws in him, but he’s enough of a “rebel” / “free bird” to charm the panties off of that same woman in short order, especially if she’s self-convinced that she can “tame” him. When he moves on, all her foot-stamping, shaming and pleading will not work, either.

This is the “bigger, better cad” that Walsh worried about. They may well be growing even as we debate – the economy is punishing Steady Eddy, but Roddy rockbandwelder is getting by. .Maybe Irving IT – sysadmin is going to learn to do the same? Roosh is the sterling example. The irony is, it’s women like Walsh and her carousel-riding finishing school girls that are creating such men in part by their entitled, “I can have my cake, and eat it to, and with sprinkles” attitude.

Men can adapt to many situations. If what Deti hypothsizes comes to pass, them younger men will just become more like Jello – and good luck nailing them down in one place. .

“A man living in this kind of way is pretty close to going ghost – he won’t be in church to be shamed, he won’t earn enough income to be worth taxing all that much, he won’t be in one place long enough for the average middle-class conservative feminist to get her claws in him, but he’s enough of a “rebel” / “free bird” to charm the panties off of that same woman in short order, especially if she’s self-convinced that she can “tame” him.”

The bachelor tax is coming though. Count on it. It won’t be called bachelor tax, of course. What will merely happen is that the tax rates of single people plus one-person households will be increased, but then a bunch of people will get exemptions and rebates, and those people’ll accidentally happen to be overwhelmingly women, or something like that. Plus whatever amount of government assistance single men are still eligible for will vanish. Maybe they’ll even bring back poorhouses, but only for single unemployed men. I can see Western governments doing that in the future.

If I’m not mistaken, feminine primacy is a condition, a social status of women, whereas the feminine imperative is the operating principle behind it, based on collective interest. Primacy is the end goal, the imperative is the means to that end.

Hollenhund –The bachelor tax is coming though. Count on it. It won’t be called bachelor tax, of course.

Shrug. More men work off the books. Bachelor tax did not work in Rome, don’t see how it can work in the declining-population nations. Doesn’t mean it won’t be tried, of course. However, I do not see such a tax yet in Japan, which is in pop decline. So, maybe not?

Dalrock, I do believe some number of men have decided to troll Yahoo Answers:

A yes can still lose out in the end. What about when an ‘oh god yes please’ comes along…

That almost never happens. I covered this already. At the time you got married, you were sufficiently high rank for her, you were the best she thought she could do (or else she wouldn’t have married you, that’s the crux of hypergamy).. And assuming typical ages at marriage, your market value is still going up, but her’s is about to start declining, and eventually declining very fast.

If you were the hottest thing she could manage when she was 25, why would an even hotter man be interested in her when she’s 35? And yes, certainly, women get inflated opinions of their market value, but that usually happens early. She’s going to deveop an inflated sense of her SMV while she’s young and hot and getting lots of interest from alphas. Then she marries you – you being the bbest she thinks she can get, meeting whatever inflated bar she has for herself.

The truth is, the guys who would be interested in her after ten years marriage and a couple of kids by you are not going to be as hot as you were when she married you. They’re going to be a couple of points lower on the scale at least. If you lose her to one of these guys, it’s because you have slipped.

Some guys don’t like to admit that, but that’s what happens when she leaves.

I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s, and was steeped in feminism. I knew from observation and experience that it didn’t work (in terms of attracting and keeping a mate), but there wasn’t anything to replace it with. Or more accurately, the alternatives were so thoroughly nuked by all of my available authority figures (including the women themselves) that I didn’t seriously consider them.

So I muddled through via trial and error, and got married in the mid-2000’s. Because my training in feminism and my natural talents of being apathetic in a relationship didn’t lead where I wanted to go, I began looking (again) for insights into male-female relationships, and how they could be nourished.

Game would be easy to write off if all I did was focus on the pump and dump side of things. I’m not interested in that. What I am interested in is how I can use game to strengthen my marriage. Currently, I’m thinking game is necessary, but not sufficient for my needs. Even if it strengthens my wife’s attraction to me (as it appears to be doing), it is dulling my attraction for her via cynicism and contempt at the fact that it is working. It feels like there’s a missing piece that needs to be added to balance out the new dynamic being developed (and it’s entirely possible that it’s just a matter of adjusting my own attitudes and expectations to conform with how reality works).

To get back to the topic at hand, I was looking for this kind of information (red pill, game, etc) before there was an internet, and probably stumbled across it a few times. However, what came across those first few times was the pump and dump lifestyle, rather than building better (re: realistic) relationships with one specific woman (ie: marriage). I suspect there are a number of folks out there that catch a whiff of red pill information but discard it as strictly PUA tips and tricks.

The problem is that there is a gulf of research, thought, years, and effort between “sense that something’s wrong” and…whatever would be needed to fix things.

I discovered game in early 2008 as a heartbroken 21-yr-old. It worked, like it does, but I looked at what those deep into it were preaching, and decided I didn’t want to go further.

But something was still wrong: the pickup community might not hold the One True Answer to everything, but everything else I could find certainly didn’t. My church just emphasized chastity, which was good but sort of like telling the poor to be humble. And obviously pop culture is a moral cesspool, so I didn’t even look.

A year or so I found Taken in Hand. While in retrospect I agree that the “male leadership” it espouses is too fragile in its foundation of female consent, and too demanding that men be superheroes, they are far, far closer to the mark than 99% of culture, including the pickup culture.

And lately I’ve been reading Dalrock, which is nearer the mark than anything I can think of. *And* I’ve been doing some heavy thinking on my own.

Almost *five years* between first catching a glimpse of the red pill, and being able to write like this today. And for most of that I just had the practical knowledge game teaches, not the huge theoretical structure the manosphere contains.

And during those five years, all the factors conspiring to beta-ize me were still in full force. I still had kindly church leaders admonishing me to respect women, without teaching me how to get into a position where that matters. My mom is still half-feminist and my dad still half-beta, and it’s hurting my parents’ marriage. Anyone who thinks abstractly enough to thought for this long on this will be slightly socially isolated. And all throughout there was the siren song of video games, a more beta-izing agent than such I cannot conceive, even though the determination to never again be a part-of-the-problem mangina was alive and well.

Anyway, my reason for recounting my personal history is not to draw attention to *my* story, so much as to illustrate that it’s a long road from first glimmerings to anything that might be considered positive for society as a whole. Do I dare speak now? *Barely*, and only to encourage male fellowship where I can, and of course against the most egregious examples of pedestalization. Would I have dared spoken two years ago? No, because I had *nothing positive to offer*, only the rejection of the flawed conventional wisdom, which would have been easily dismissed as “bitter” and rightly dismissed as “unhelpful.”

This is why I am not optimistic for the masses—there may be a more general awakening in the future, but it will be driven by the little head, not the big one. And as such, it will be easily placated. Maybe the Venkerites will gain some steam and door-opening will be cool again or something. But half-formed principles will fly out the window for most men if the possibility of sex is on the line.

*No one cares whether a beta respects women: he either does, and gets his scraps, or doesn’t, and isn’t a threat, because he’s a beta. The ones to whom that teaching is directed are the imagined legions of alphas, which have of course shrunk in number. Chivalry the code of the powerful knights and not the craven serfs, etc.

“People that have seen the changes push back. People that learn after I meet them how much effort I go through to be happy and healthy push back. Its crazy but hilarious how they deny it works or deny its worth it”

@ Wudang
I’ve had people try and make fun of me for my new fashion sense and dressing well. I’ve had people say “you just lost your man card” for sticking by the decision and desire to drink more wine and less beer for health reasons (I like them equally to begin with, so why not). People that scoff at my diet as extreme, despite it’s results in getting me where I want to be and still enjoying my food. People that felt I was personally attacking them when I slowly and passively stopped spending as much time on social media/video games, and more time at the gym. Hell, I even get shit for reading books I chose to increase my knowledge as opposed to watching ‘the good TV shows’ on.

I get it from both men and women that I’ve known. Ones that I’ve known awhile do it when they see the changes. A few that I’ve met do it when they learn how I changed my lifestyle.

I’m pretty sure its based in two things. A fear of what their own social/sexual rank is (and that it’s lower than they want) and the denial that they can do anything about it. I get a bunch of both whining and anger about the whole thing. As if I personally am doing it to make them look bad and not for my own benefit.

But the whole time they’re fascinated. The irony and dark humor of the whole thing is what amuses me.

@ Wudang again
Forgot to say that’s completely disregarding anything of what people would consider Game if you used the word. Micro game – as badger described it. It’s amusing to see women’s reactions as I tell them I got other women’s numbers and how I do it. That Badger’s “You look like you’re having the most fun here.” works well on the girl using facebook in the corner of the bar.

That being said – I haven’t lost friends over it like I did general red pill knowledge. It just helps me mentally sort people out into people that will drag my energy and resources down and those that are fascinated/encouraged to do more that we can work on pulling each other up. It’s actually a great thing to be honest about for that reason.

But before the advent of the Internet and the manosphere many men believed their experiences were unique, or that they were just doing it wrong, or were not “nice enough”.

This is an important concept. Those guys really were “doing it wrong” but the reason they were doing it wrong is because that’s what they were taught to do. Feminism didn’t just fail to teach men how to be desirable mates, it taught them bad information, trained them to do exactly the wrong thing.

Deti’s list of things the feminists might try to do is a good one, and I’m sure they would try to do those things. I just don’t think they have enough time. A Femtopia is an unsustainable society. The direction we’re going is driving more and more guys to Anon Reader’s ghost tinker lifestyle, drifing from place to place, putting as much effort info avoiding being fleeced than into doing any useful work. Other guys are being driven to putting more effort into social climbing. No guy is really being rewarded for actually being productive.

We’ve been living on a safety margin built by previous generations, but we’re burning through that fast. Our economy is going to hell. Our infrastructure will start following. Sometime before the entire nation becomes one big Detroit, one of two things will happen.

Either there wiil rise the equivalent of warloards, the adoption of a neo-fuedal lifestyle that relegates women to chattel property with few rights as is the case in fundie Islam. Or, we will re-establish Marraige 1.0, where women are considered human being due dignity and fair treatment, but not really allowed much say in how society runs because they screw that up. Either way the feminists will eventually lose.

“This is the “bigger, better cad” that Walsh worried about. They may well be growing even as we debate – the economy is punishing Steady Eddy, but Roddy rockbandwelder is getting by. .Maybe Irving IT – sysadmin is going to learn to do the same? Roosh is the sterling example.”

Good analysis, Anon. Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer is in it for the fun, for the party/booze/drugs gravy train, and for the poon. Roddy Rockbandwelder is in it for himself.

The point is, more and more men will begin doing what Jack Donovan pointed out somewhere, which is asking themselves what it means to be men. Men being what they are, they’ll reach many different answers. A lot of men are asking

“why am I knocking myself out for degrees and jobs and money, when I can work a third as hard for half the money because I don’t have a wife or children?”

or “why am I working this hard for good money, when it hasn’t helped me attract any worthy women (or even any UNworthy women, for that matter? What’s the point?”

or “why am I working this hard for a 1 in 2 chance that I could marry (or am married to) a wife who’s just going to divorce me and take half of everything?”

“Is it the measure of a man to get a degree, a job, a wife, a mortgage and kids?”

“Is it the measure of a man to work myself into an early grave?”

“Is it the measure of a man to earn money, spend, purchase, and consume?”

“Why should I improve myself for a woman? What, because SHE needs/wants a BF/husband? What about what I want/need?”

Per my last post – questions like these are the ones that ought to frighten women. Because they directly question the feminine imperative, men’s relationship to society and our role in it, and our mutual futures.

To continue on my analogy to low-carb, if things follow the same pattern, it’ll look something like this:

1) The concepts and lingo reach enough of a critical mass to start leaking out into the mainstream, if only in the sense that you hear people saying, “What’s this ‘game’ stuff all about?” (This is just now starting to happen.)

2) There is an explosion of books and web sites, and some of the books may even sell pretty well as jaundiced men snap them up. Some of the lingo enters common usage, though most people using it don’t know what they’re talking about.

3) Some of the promoters are interviewed by TV and magazines (though probably not Oprah in this case). These tend to be the ones with the best marketing skills, not necessarily the ones with the most tact or the best arguments. They are always accompanied or followed by someone to present the “moderate” viewpoint and make it clear that they’re extremists.

4) Many men try to use game based on what they learned from a 5-minute radio interview, crash and burn, and conclude that it’s a scam.

5) Prominent anti-game figures (feminists and manginas) use their media power to shout down and marginalize game promoters, assuring the public that the conventional wisdom is still correct, nothing to see here, move along now. As much as possible, even expressing interest in game is treated as social heresy.

6) Some of the simpler concepts (men not buying women drinks, for instance) catch on, though the men using them mostly have no idea why. (Sort of like the way everyone eats bacon again now because low-carbers brought it back, though most think they’re being naughty by doing it.) It’s sort of random, with some truths catching on, some catching on in an incorrect form, and most being ignored or forgotten.

7) Most of the books hit the bargain bin and many of the web sites stagnate, until the “movement” has retreated back to about the size it was before, maybe a bit bigger.

8) A core group continues to study and discuss red pill topics, achieving important breakthroughs in understanding, but the mainstream has already moved on. Some individuals have great success applying the knowledge, but it remains well off the beaten path.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be an effect. For one thing, male/female relationships (unlike dieting) are a zero-sum game, so what happens at the margins matters. If you move even 5% of the men from the “I’ll take whoever’s willing” market to the “I’m going to hold out for a real wife (or none at all)” market, that’s going to have an effect. That doesn’t just leave 5% of the women without an easy target; it gives the other 95% more competition as well. So I do think there will be overall change (although I think a serious economic crash will have a far greater effect), but I think it’ll be subtle, not men in general completely changing their approach.

@wudang I can vouch for push back. I was making the change to a “game frame” while I was still married to my ex in an effort to fix a very unhappy and unhealthy marriage. I did not know about the manoshpere then, but a man I deeply respect basically set me on path back to Alpha/Greater Beta that is prescribed on pretty much every manosphere blog. Take care of myself, get fit, do the things that make me me, cultivate my natural charm, etc.

Basically, push back came with my ex expressing that she wanted her beaten beta husband back. She protested against my change in diet, all the time I was spending in the gym, socializing, leading community organizations and my demands for more and better sex. The paradox was she found me more attractive, but couldn’t put up with it. I really flipped her when I started refusing her “just get it over with sex”. It is amazing what the I would rather starve than take your low quality scraps attitude will do.

Truth is, I was figuring out my SMP value was way, way beyond hers now that she had let herself go…and since she couldn’t bear children all she could do to keep me was keep me down and play to my religious beliefs and loyalty to my marriage vows.

Too bad she had done some stuff over the course of the marriage that wholly broke those vows, but it took me regaining my alpha/greater beta frame to recognize it. The good and the bad is that without children in the mix the divorce was more the 50/50 split of accumulated resources, but when I look back on it, most if not all of the resources came from my labor, so it was a 12-year expensive lesson.

In a nutshell SunshineMary, I would describe the Feminine Imperative as the tendency for women to define social rules and morality to meet strictly female needs.

Yes. That is why Democracy has a life-cycle, after which a feminist police-state is inevitable.

This is because while men vote for what benefits all people, women tend to vote for what benefits women only. Hence, women having the right to vote puts too much power in the hands of the demonstrably irresponsible party.

Even more starkly, children have it far worse in societies where women are into the 3rd/4th generation of voting, than children do even in non-Democratic, but stable societies.

In a nutshell SunshineMary, I would describe the Feminine Imperative as the tendency for women to define social rules and morality to meet strictly female needs.

What is telling is how ruthlessly even children are sacrificed in the path of the feminist imperative.

I maintain that fathers seem to be the ones who truly put their children ahead of themselves. Women don’t do this. They may feeeeeeel that the do this, and then rationalize that feeling a certain thing is the same as doing it. But their actions are anti-child.

I have a rare opportunity next month to meet David Nixon, who co-produced the movie Fireproof. Knowing your concerns about this film (and because I’m not too good with theological questions) I’d be grateful for your suggestions on a few pithy and pertinent questions I could ask him (before a Christian audience) that will expose the inherent misandry in the film. If you’re thus inclined, feel free to post them or email me at the commentors address. It seems too rare an opportunity to miss, so I’d really appreciate your help.

@ TFH
“Even more starkly, children have it far worse in societies where women are into the 3rd/4th generation of voting, than children do even in non-Democratic, but stable societies.”

Do you have studies to back this up? The only thing I can think of you citing to make that claim with facts is statistics based on the results of divorce and the rise of it after women achieve voting/no fault divorce. Which I’d agree with, and I think most here are willing to extrapolate that data to come to that conclusion. I simply doubt feminists, or even the average blue pill person, would.

Curious and figured I’d ask. Get another tool in my kit to use against them.

Basic stats has shown at the Entitlement State can’t survive another decade. Who just won reelection? Stats won’t matter, only collapse to those people (then they’ll blame the people that tried to save them).

We really need to come up with 3 well tested questions you can just fire off, depending on the crowd. He’s got more than 1 movie he’s done, so you can nail him on multiple ones. We also really should work on having a firing squad for the likely places he would go to avoid the question.

I have a rare opportunity next month to meet David Nixon, who co-produced the movie Fireproof. Knowing your concerns about this film (and because I’m not too good with theological questions) I’d be grateful for your suggestions on a few pithy and pertinent questions I could ask him (before a Christian audience) that will expose the inherent misandry in the film. If you’re thus inclined, feel free to post them or email me at the commentors address. It seems too rare an opportunity to miss, so I’d really appreciate your help.

Interesting. I wouldn’t expect to be able to convince him or most of the audience of anything, but perhaps you could get a few people thinking. I might come up with some others later, but here is what comes to mind right now. My guess is you will be lucky to get one full question in, but I’ve included four. Feel free to tune to your taste:

1) Our culture is saturated with divorce fantasy, where women divorce or threaten to divorce and are rewarded as a result. This is a theme you will see in every form of entertainment targeted at women, from periodicals to movies (EPL), to programs on Lifetime television. Given that we are in the middle of a decades long epidemic of wife initiated divorce*, can you explain why you chose a plot which showcased a wife experiencing power by threatening to divorce? Wouldn’t it have been not only more helpful and more biblical to counter this trend instead of further it?

2) The Bible repeatedly states that wives are to submit to their husbands**, but this is rejected or explained away by feminists who are in open rebellion. Would you be open to creating a movie which taught this biblical message? Given that the Scripture is already being actively opposed by so many Christian wives (in our feminist steeped culture), why create a movie on Christian marriage which teaches husbands to submit to their wives? Doesn’t this create confusion and strife in Christian marriages?

3) I’ve read where a prominent Christian author*** argued that Catherine was biblically justified in divorcing Caleb and seeking the Doctor as a new husband since he had viewed pornography (which the author considered adultery). What would you say to Christian wives who took this message away from the movie?

4) The primary conflict of the movie is only resolved once Catherine learns that Caleb is the one who donated the lions share of the money for the items she wanted to purchase for her mother****. Is the audience supposed to read this as Caleb besting the Doctor in a bidding war for his own wife’s heart, or is this teaching that husbands need to follow their wife’s leadership or risk divorce? Is either a biblical message?

4b) (follow up) In the story we are told that Catherine’s mother requires medical equipment due to her stroke, but the specific selection of $20k worth of top of the line equipment is only made by Catherine, not a medical professional. Similarly, at one point Caleb makes the mistake of buying flowers for Catherine which aren’t expensive enough and the movie makes a big point of showing this as wrong. It seems as if one of the key messages of the movie is that Christian husbands need to spend as much money as their wives expect, even if the reasons for the expense seem dubious to the husband. Is this accurate?

These may be harsher than you are looking for. If you prefer I could probably retool and come back with something with less of an edge. For background you might see the posts I’ve written referencing the movie (here). Good luck!

* You might have a copy of These Boots Are Made For Walking handy if you ask this to back up the wife initiated part, or at least be ready to cite it. You might also print/cite the paper by Stevenson and Wolfers I quote here on the topic of divorce threats used as a way to overcome biblical headship within marriage.

** I have a list of Scriptures in the table at the bottom of this page which you may find helpful. Be sure of course that you agree with the citations and are prepared to make your case with Scripture.

*** See Sheila Gregoire’s comments on her blog here and my blog here. Only ask the question if you agree that this was her argument, or reframe it as you prefer. I would print both comments out and have them ready for reference.

**** Note that Catherine isn’t won over by Caleb caring for her when she was sick, or by learning that he has not only undertaken the love dare, but continued it after the 40 days are over. See the scene where he cares for her in bed for reference. It is very stark. Also note the scene where Caleb tells the doctor (making a fist with his ring on) that he will fight him for Catherine’s heart.

>Hardly. Roosh is able to succeed in a variety of countries and cultures. And there are many tools of Game he does not even use (like NLP).

Roosh doesn’t convince me. Isn’t he the guy who struck out in Denmark, and so had to write a book called “Don’t Bang Denmark,” to put a good face on his failure?

As far as I can tell, Roosh fails quite often. Sometimes his attempts work, and sometimes they fail spectacularly.

>Certain things are quite universal. It requires a society where women do have casual sex, but not much else (and LTR Game is useful even in conservative, marry-as-virgins societies).

LTR Game, as mentioned above, is a rearguard action at best. I don’t believe it’s been tested in any “marry-as-virgins” societies – it’s been tested in Western societies with insane divorce laws, such as the USA. If there is anyone who attributes his marital success in a “marry-as-virgins” society to “LTR Game,” I haven’t heard of him. If you can produce a convincing example, I’ll modify or retract my earlier statements.

BC has perfectly articulated one of the things I had wanted to say:
> mass movements a la MRM will never succeed until there is a society-wide crash-and-burn. And even then they will succeed only for a while, and not due to efforts on their part, but simply due to economics. Unless we are talking a new Dark Age, the genie is not going back in the bottle.

I would add that there is an additional complicating factor: Asia.

A lot of smart, proactive people live in Asia. Their societies have a veneer of Western law, but they are not Western societies.

If the Western welfare states crash, a lot of Asians are going to be open to arguments for the rejection of Western values, culture, and alliances. So if you’re a pale-face expat enjoying Bangkok, keep an eye on the political atmosphere. A Western crash could make the expat lifestyle much less comfortable.

Do you have studies to back this up? The only thing I can think of you citing to make that claim with facts is statistics based on the results of divorce and the rise of it after women achieve voting/no fault divorce. Which I’d agree with, and I think most here are willing to extrapolate that data to come to that conclusion. I simply doubt feminists, or even the average blue pill person, would.

There is clearly no hard study done of this. It is just a conclusion derived by the following datapoints :

1) The *most* misandric laws are in those where women have had 90+ years of voting (US, UK, Canada, Aus).

2) Prosperous countries that have been democracies for less time have considerably less in the way of misandric laws (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea). Japan has a low marriage rate, but not because of the laws (which are not nearly as bad as the US).

3) India has had women voting since 1947, so 65 years. Despite the poverty of the country and thousands of years of tradition that generates an excellent understanding of female psychology and how to obstruct the negative aspects of female hypergamy, some surprisingly misandric laws already exist in India (DV laws like VAWA, lower taxes for women, schools don’t charge fees to girls but do to boys, etc.). They are copying UK/US laws, and decades sooner than one would expect.

4) Middle-income countries that are new democracies or not democracies at all, have almost no feminism. Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Thailand, Turkey, etc.

5) Remember that women had the right to vote in the Roman Republic, and it collapsed shortly after that.

So that is the correlation side. You will find misandry in the law to be very closely correlated to how long women have had the right to vote in that country.

Only 5-6 countries are into 90+ years of women voting, and another 10-15 are into 60-90 years of women voting, so that is far too little of a track record upon which to judge that such an experiment has worked. If anything, there is evidence that it has failed.
___________________________________________

Now, on the psychological side. Anyone who deeply knows about female psychology is aware that women are extremely focused on getting the resources of society transferred to themselves. This made sense biologically, as this correlated to the survival of children (even though that is extremely untrue today). Women focus on this which great vigor. And this is largely unopposed in society. I mean, just look how the recent US election was dominated by women’s narcissism, and attempts to scare women that ‘the Republicans will take your freebies away’.

Now, I am definitely not the first person to say that women are hardwired to want socialism. Roissy has said it, as well as others before him.

Men have no such focus. If men did, there would be lobbies to legalize prostitution. There would be lobbies to allow immigration of women only. Hell, there would even be MRA activism beyond the 3-4 of us who presently do anything.

Make the most of it… I am not even a Christian but eagerly hope to hear that you swayed at least a couple of people in that audience.

Also, if you could, go a few minutes early to post flyers that lead people to Dalrock’s blog in the Men’s Room of the venue there. The flyer should have a question like “How come the Man has to pay even if HE doesn’t want a divorce? Go to dalrock.wordpress.com”.

Read about how to make flyers with the maximum impact, and where to place them :

That will bring some new people to Dalrock’s site. Flyer-posting above Urinals has a very high multiplier effect, and is relevant to the audience of the event you are going to (who will be going to the Men’s room throughout).

Violating social mores can take a couple of forms. As Sharrukin wrote:
>I suspect a lot of those who are seen as Alpha’s are accorded that status due to their success with women. They may not be socially Alpha, but certainly emulate enough traits that they are attractive to women. The dead broke garage band member is a case in point. This probably has more to do with his violating social mores which seems transgressive and bolder, which gives the false impression that he is socially dominant, rather than the reality that he has little investment in society in general.

Someone like Marilyn Manson violates social norms, gets co-opted,and gets rewarded. Someone like the Unabomber violates social norms and destabilizes the entire edifice of law and order.

Being “transgressive” is a cheap thrill when you’re just risking herpes. Being “transgressive” can lead to imprisonment, maiming, or death if you’re actually posing an immediate threat.

Western societies are poisoned with Cultural Marxism. The Cultural Marxists *want* to teach the little boys to be transgressive like Marilyn Manson, but instead they end up producing Dylan Klebolds.

>Game would be easy to write off if all I did was focus on the pump and dump side of things. I’m not interested in that. What I am interested in is how I can use game to strengthen my marriage. Currently, I’m thinking game is necessary, but not sufficient for my needs. Even if it strengthens my wife’s attraction to me (as it appears to be doing), it is dulling my attraction for her via cynicism and contempt at the fact that it is working.

I don’t know what kind of stable society will eventually emerge from the ashes of the Western welfare states. I suspect it will be more like traditional patriarchy than anything else. The technologies of birth control won’t go away, but there will be hideously virulent new venereal diseases to impose costs on promiscuity. Cultural Marxists hate people who tell the truth about STDs, which means as the real-world problem gets worse and worse, more and more people who want nothing more than human health and survival will necessarily become enemies of Cultural Marxism. While we’re cogitating about how to build a society that’s safe for LTRs, we can start from observations about current VD rates.

If there is anyone who attributes his marital success in a “marry-as-virgins” society to “LTR Game,” I haven’t heard of him.

Hawaii Libertarian/Keoni Galt married a women who was a virgin. While still part of this society, that was still in a community and era where this was not rare. So he is a pretty good example.

Roosh doesn’t convince me. Isn’t he the guy who struck out in Denmark, and so had to write a book called “Don’t Bang Denmark,” to put a good face on his failure?

That wasn’t because he failed (he could easily choose not to write about Denmark at all or even tell anyone he went there). It is a guide telling men that Denmark is not a good choice.

Plus, your own comment accepts that he succeeded in countries where he wrote ‘Bang’ books, such as Iceland, Poland, Lithuania, etc. And the Eastern European ones among those are countries are LESS Western than Denmark, and where fewer people speak English than Denmark.

You cherrypick something and made a strawman on top of that, which weakens your own claim rather than strengthens it. There is also Krauser who also goes to Eastern Europe.

If you think Game would be invalid with small shifts in socio-economic conditions, you don’t really understand Game, and how it connects to far more deeply wired aspects of the female brain.

Wow I gotta say dalrock’s answers to Jacob showed a boatload of insight and intelligence.
I’m not easily impressed,but wow,Dalrock,you’re the thinking man’s man.
Quite impressive.
If we could inculcate half of those ideas into churchian pastor’s minds half the battle would be done.

Most young men have a basic understanding of game nowadays, and that is a good thing. I don’t see why there are so many people who are anti-game. Game is just realistic dating advice for men. Nothing more. The old school way of wooing and seducing women was no longer working, so young men took it upon themselves to create a “field tested” approach to dating. Nothing too contraversial about that.

The haters of game don’t seem all that worked up that women, in women’s magazines and talk shows and on the internet, are always talking about dating advice. The mainstream dating advice exposed by women to other women is as follows: play the field with as men as you can during your 20’s in order to “find yourself and figure out what you like,” and only in your late 20’s/early 30’s should you settle down by finding a husband who will cave into all of the crazy demands you can dream of. Needless to say, the mainstream dating advice that women give to other women is no more “ethical” than the game expoused by PUAs.

Game won’t work miracles and has to be practiced in order to become proficient, but at least it is something. The haters of game offer nothing more than the same old tired advice that no longer works. You can’t critique game and at the same time offer advice that no longer works. Such an argument just doesn’t resonate with young men well. Young men want solutions, not a lecture on morality from old fogies.

The main problem with game is that is hard work. It involves putting up with rejections, bitch shields, cock blockers, flakes, etc. Some people have compared game to diet or exercise advice, and I agree with this assessment. There is plenty of good advice on how to lose weight, yet not everyone is thin and trim because losing weight involves actual work. It involves working out and eating healthy.

I don’t know what impact game will have on the future. I do know that the knowledge of game is now more widespread than ever, so if a guy doesn’t want to listen to it, then fine. Just don’t complain about your crappy sex life.

Not necessarily. You’re ignoring the female compulsion for serial monogamy over permanent monogamy, even if it might mean trading down (which her hamster will convince her is not happening).

Crank, you’ve got the cause-effect arrow backwards. Women don’t have a compulstion for serial mongamy, they have a compulsion for hypergamy. it’s hypergamy that drives serial monogomy, not the other way around.

A woman will pick the best man (according to the rules of female attraction) she thinks she can get, and as long as she’s still convinced of that (and the hamster works both ways as Athol has pointed out – usually ti works in your favor by helping her rationalize doing the right thing) she will stick with him.

She will only start looking around if she starts to think he’s no longer the best she can get. The problem for men is that her estrogen-addled brain has an odd sense of what “best” really means. It doesn’t mean – like a man would think – a dependable guy who will always take care of her and her kids. It means an exciting guy who’s so “busy” with his “exciting” life that he barely has time for her.

It’s harder to maintain that illusion when you’re living in the same house. But you can do it. Understanding Game is what gives you the knowledge to maintain your rank.

1) Women don’t like that they may end up having sex with a man who is not wealthy, or otherwise not have rights to a man’s economic output in return for sex. Women don’t see Game as a positive that makes more men sufficiently attractive (even though men would very much encourage any efforts by women to become better looking). This is because women don’t understand cause and effect very well.

2) Manginas and other haters don’t want to hear that what they have invested their life into was a dead end. They cannot come to terms with the sunk costs of their life to date, and take the required course correction. It is easier to suppress evidence that your entire worldview is wrong, than to introspect and revise one’s beliefs.

3) Race nationalists (of any race) don’t like it if men of a different race start ‘taking’ ‘their’ women. The white nationalist contingent in the androsphere is here for only this reason, as they fundamentally oppose Game and even Men’s Rights, yet still frequent these blogs because they don’t like being passed over when a white woman rejects them for a colored man with more Game. If black or Asian nationalists were more numerous, they would behave the same way.

4) Social conservatives don’t like it if a woman has pre-marital sex, but they think this is because the man tricked her. They see Game as ‘deflowering’ innocent women, but this view assumes that women cannot make their own decisions, and is thus very misogynist. Also, Game enables a man to avoid the sex-for-slavery arrangement that social conservatives prefer men be bound by.

5) The anti-gamers who are otherwise nominally MRAs are just confused, and don’t know enough about Game to realize that it is a huge weapon against the very core of feminism. That young (under age 25) Gamers have no concept of the legal risks a man faces exacerbates this mutual misunderstanding.

Yea, who needs overt feminists bad-mouthing, bashing, denigrating, and talking shit about men and all their awful shortcomings, and dictating what a correct man N.O.W. is supposed to do and think, and what the official “truth about women” is supposed to be, when you’ve got scads of bamboozled useful “Game” idiots to do your dirty work for you?

Thank you so much for your well-considered and thoughtful response. I’m humbled by the effort you must have put in to it. I’d love to ask him all of your questions but sadly I’ll probably only have time for one or two. If the opportunity arises to engage Mr Nixon in conversation I’ll work in as many of your ideas as I can. I’ll post his responses here in due course.

“Even if it strengthens my wife’s attraction to me (as it appears to be doing), it is dulling my attraction for her via cynicism and contempt at the fact that it is working. It feels like there’s a missing piece that needs to be added to balance out the new dynamic being developed (and it’s entirely possible that it’s just a matter of adjusting my own attitudes and expectations to conform with how reality works).”

This is where I have been for quite a while now, and have been working hard to find a way out of it. I would not necessarily say it dulls my attraction for my wife, since she is attractive, but it does cause me to question things. I’ve become more cynical and less trusting in every area of my life. i’ve said it before: Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, I thought I knew about male-female relationships was 100% wrong. I put my trust in parents, teachers, pastors, Scout leaders, and other adults who I thought knew what they were talking about, only to discover that they had absolutely NO idea what they were talking about. I listened to them about other things too, such as school advice, college advice, politics, economics, nutrition, medicine, business, and career advice. Increasingly, I am discovering they were wrong about that stuff too.

I find myself thinking: If I had had game and the manosphere’s knowledge as a boy and a young man, what would my life look like now? Would I have married her (probably not)? Would I have married at all (questionable)? If I had wanted to marry, could I have married a “higher quality” woman? Did I settle? Doesn’t EVERYONE settle?

Why am I doing all this when she can decide to leave at any time? I have an enormous amount of sunk costs in the marriage. I have children who depend on me. Is the only reason to do all this to protect my investment in the sunk costs and to care for the kids? She is responding to my game; but is this real or is this just an act because she knows she can’t divorce me without destroying all of us, including her own children? Is it really the case that she’s staying with me because of the potential for mutually assured destruction? Can I trust her? How do I reconcile all this with my faith and what we Christians call “flesh”? Isn’t this just indulging her flesh and mine?

That latest link to game was interesting.
Talk of ‘uncalibrated’ newbies out there doing the super caveman game messing up the frame for the true players,forcing them into an almost white-knightish soothing frame to get past the bitch shield.

Gibberish!
Basically “I will say or do whatever it takes to get laid tonight.
How is that any less conciliatory than actual white-knighting?
It’s becoming true that fake nice-guys are indeed on the make.(just sad)

Anyway,super alpha mac daddy thug pua is not going to have worry about AMOG’in me out of the way,”bro.”

Hell I would pay you to take her.

But don’t come running to me for help when your world is down around your ears.

PAU’s-keeping that princess entitlement attitude alive.
(for transient pleasure and at the cost of social civility.)

Just watch it bub,that quiet guy you just slammed out of the way may be on his last ounce of tolerance.

She is responding to my game; but is this real or is this just an act because she knows she can’t divorce me without destroying all of us, including her own children?

It is real either way, in the same way that Roissy describes older women needing less alpha to pick up because they understand their options. He says that too much alpha will actually frighten them off. Their conscious understanding changes their unconscious expectations. What you have done is take your wife from unreal fantasy expectations about divorce (EPL), and helped her see reality (massive destruction). Part of that should be an understanding of the real SMV prospects for divorced women with kids (not the Hollywood versions of EPL and Stella). She (and every other wife) has been fed a pack of nonsense that divorce somehow allows them to relive their glory days in the SMV. Most women can process past this because they intuitively sense the reality here, but even then it can create a sense of missing out on something by staying married. They are smart enough to stay but the suggestion leaves them miserable. Change the suggestion and they will be happier. This is just like Mentu’s mother telling his sister (regarding the sister’s husband) “Take care of that man or another woman will”. Mentu’s mom is helping her daughter stay out of the “I can do better script” by steering her toward “Those bitches are trying to steal my man!”. Ironically the latter script leaves the daughter happier, but the reality is she is more or less going to pick one script or another. It may as well be the one that doesn’t end in her own and her kids’ misery, and leaves her happier today to boot.

The self examination you flirt with in your most recent post I think will resonate with a great many men. This gaming of the wife, I had a recent experience where I had to whip out the master playbook and game of all games had to be like a third party in the marriage, so palpable its presence had to intensively be…..and it functioned above its indicated efficacy, obliterated the rising maelstrom, and set things back very right again. A friend I have online via blogging read my email account of said events and like me, was not what I would call surprised that such a thing worked as it should, but as we discussed it we agreed it leaves a hollow victory kind of feeling.

Now I know that there could be gamers plow in and start saying that if someone says what you’ve said, or what I’m saying (and I also agree with the sort of ever simmering game effects that you point out) that I/you/we “just still don’t understand it”…which then in my case renders me somehow anti-game….which illustrates my biggest and only peeve with it, the need to nudge it ever to the nebulous to defend even against those who espouse its functionality yet are left with some of these thoughts you lay out. Maybe its unique to a man like you, or me, married, not overly unhappy, but thoughtful and when thoughts are allowed to wander, they lead to the kinds of unanswerable marital existential questions you hint at.

Its at cross purposes when men try and discuss game anyway, and the harder the married guys try to find some common ground with the unmarried guys, regardless there spot on the spectrum of PUA or game-ish beta, there are things present in a decades long marriage and shared history that can make a game shot match a Pyrrhic victory.

The kind of insight and introspection I am talking about is work that has to be done, by men for men. It has led to the point that the old lies you formerly used to live your life HAVE to be discarded because the incontrovertible evidence of the truth is all around you. Most people cannot face it. I have no choice but to face it, because it is undeniable. That “facing it” is extremely painful and gives rise to much cognitive dissonance. It has required an entirely new way of approaching the world, to the point where I have been asking myself many hard questions about who and what I really am, what I really believe, and where I am going from here.

I have had to ask these things about myself as a man — not as a married man, or a son or brother, or a husband, or a father, or an employee, but as a man. I have had to go all the way back to just me, without reference to any roles I play or jobs I have or expectations others have of me. And questioning all of this, examining the very foundations of the beginnings of your life, realizing that those foundations must be destroyed and the materials thrown away; and that I have to find new material and build a new foundation, is very, very difficult. Those old foundations were built with substandard materials and not to the required specifications. They are now rotting from the inside out. They were never suited to support the structure, and their flaws have been exposed for all to see. It is that I MUST destroy those foundations, or they will destroy me. I MUST build a new foundation, or the house I have built will fall of its own weight.

But why does it bother you that your wives are attracted to a more dominant masculine frame (let’s call it game for short)? Is it just because you had illusions due to misinformation? But women are only human, too, same as men; as a group, we have our attraction triggers, just as men have. Why be upset about this? I know what turns my husband on – same as any man really – sexy visual stimuli. I can’t, of course, make myself 22 again, but I can do all the other stuff. Women do a whole lot to try to keep a man’s sexual interest, and we do it because we know what men find attractive. I guess some fat cow might be ticked off about it, but most of us accept that we have to do these things and aren’t angry about it. I’m not disillusioned or angry about the fact that my husband responds to me differently in lingerie than in yoga pants and a hoodie. Why does it bother you that your wives respond to game like this?

Most men have pride in their own image. When they have to face the harsh reality that the person that they are is actually not that attractive, it hurts at the basest level. They simply want women to be attracted to them especially their wifes because they are their base core is a cool guy. Having to use game invalidates who they grew up to be. That’s why older men have a harder time accepting it because the person that they became is shown to be the person that women don’t want. Young guys don’t have this kind of pain awakening because they are still finding who they are.

Morpheus: “I feel I owe you an apology. We have rule, we never free a mind once it’s reached a certain age. It’s dangerous; the mind has trouble letting go.”

“Currently, I’m thinking game is necessary, but not sufficient for my needs. Even if it strengthens my wife’s attraction to me (as it appears to be doing), it is dulling my attraction for her via cynicism and contempt at the fact that it is working. It feels like there’s a missing piece that needs to be added to balance out the new dynamic being developed (and it’s entirely possible that it’s just a matter of adjusting my own attitudes and expectations to conform with how reality works).”

@ Deti

” I’ve become more cynical and less trusting in every area of my life. i’ve said it before: Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, I thought I knew about male-female relationships was 100% wrong. I put my trust in parents, teachers, pastors, Scout leaders, and other adults who I thought knew what they were talking about, only to discover that they had absolutely NO idea what they were talking about. I listened to them about other things too, such as school advice, college advice, politics, economics, nutrition, medicine, business, and career advice. Increasingly, I am discovering they were wrong about that stuff too.”

I’ll add on the post divorce take on this. All of what both of you are saying is true, but in some ways it’s much worse when you are divorced. If I date some woman and act respectfully, just like I was taught growing up, you can just see their eyes glaze over. If I start ignoring shit tests, negging, agreeing and amplifying and on and on you can literally see the IOI’s light up. Repeat this over and over while dating and it gets depressing.

And that adjustment part is what I struggle with. I have so much going on in my life that it’s hard to imagine investing the time and energy required for something more than a casual relationship. Greenlander had a post many months ago on how he figured out exactly how much time (in hours) he had to invest to get some gal in bed. He then pointed out that the 20 or so hours of investment could be replaced by 10 minutes with his right hand, thus freeing up 19 hours and 50 minutes to do things that really interested him. I laughed when I read it but then realized that as a divorced man in his forties he was right!

But the secondary layer to this that you married guys may not see as much is how this knowledge of relationship dynamics and the change wrought by the sexual free for all has created a whole segment of women who are now, in my eyes, completely and utterly unfit for commitment. And that is my interest in committing to them and their actual ability to commit. So every event you go to, every party, every situation where you actively look to find single ladies in their forties you are met with a parade of EPL divorcees, former club gals, or personality disordered ladies. The smallest segment out there are the normal, grounded divorcees and widows who actually are now single due to divorce from an idiot or death. And these ladies get snapped up fast! It almost feels like you are driving around a full parking lot looking for a open space. Most of the time you drive and drive around and around and then some guy shows up and manages to get one right away. It’s a real effort and one that many guys I know who are divorced don’t have the time for. Most of the guys I know who are divorced just stumbled into a new relationship through work or a friend. Not through dating websites or meeting women at parties.

So knowledge of this relationship dynamic forces you to see all of these ladies and their motivations much more clearly. Assuming that all women are good is no longer the norm. And the part that makes me most cynical is the fact that you really don’t have to scratch the surface too hard before they play their hand. We, as men, were taught growing up that all women are good and that being a nice guy is the way to go. The women seem like they were all taught that they get to dictate terms forever and that they don’t have to bring anything to the relationship except their wonderful special personality. Yes, I know this is nothing new. But when you don’t have the rose colored glasses on anymore it’s galling to see women in their forties who still believe this. You’d think that a divorce or two would change this dynamic, but you would, for the most part, be wrong. And that is the struggle you married guys may not see as much because you aren’t actively looking for a new relationship and sorting through the leftover chaff.

For me it’s that I was programmed by society to shun those male chauvinist pigs and pursue a “loving relationship” with an equal… and even though I was always sort of a chump… there just had to be “the one for me” somewhere out there.

Now…

1) I see that my wife’s concept of Christian male authority is merely to have me “man up” and tackle her to-do list. In her mind, I’m there to rubber stamp her demands so that I can take the blame if anything turns out bad.

2) Meanwhile… NOTHING in the bible about women’s roles applies to her if she decides she doesn’t respect me.

3) She is stupid… constantly putting herself out for loser guys that can’t even hold down a job. Without my intervention, something would “just happen” sooner or later. She thinks *I’m* so stupid that such a line would satisfy me in the event of her committing adultery. She constantly rationalizes the acts of her girlfriends that have made similar mistakes.

4) She is not shy about threatening to blow up the family. Every day of my life is part of an ongoing hostage negotiation.

I don’t care if game ultimately restores our relationship and gets me laid like tile. I CANNOT respect this sort of person. I cannot admire this sort of person. My wife has some… unusual qualities… sure. But I don’t see any evidence that other women are qualitatively different. The script is broken. So broken, I do not know right off how to “love” women anymore. If women are incapable taking responsibility for their choices, exercising moral autonomy, or honoring their commitments then in my mind they do not deserve to be treated as anything other than property– spoils to be taken from other tribes.

@Deti
“why am I knocking myself out for degrees and jobs and money, when I can work a third as hard for half the money because I don’t have a wife or children?”

Because it is to gain and understand the tacit knowledge from academic staff, to make a good living so one can retire on a yacht and enjoy the company of fellow men and material possessions. Im not implying that material possessions are in any way a sustitute put i like fast cars what man does not. Why do anything if that is the case??? Just because your well educated does not mean you have to follow the sheeple into corporate cubicleville on a daily basis.

“Crank, you’ve got the cause-effect arrow backwards. Women don’t have a compulstion for serial mongamy, they have a compulsion for hypergamy. it’s hypergamy that drives serial monogomy, not the other way around.”

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. For the reasons you gave in your first post, it’s very unlikely that a woman will be do better for herself after popping out two kids than she did when younger, but I’ve seen too many times when she suddenly became disgusted with her husband even though he was the same guy she married (and more successful). The impulse for serial monogamy (rather than just hypergamy) would come from the benefit of genetic variety. It appears to be strongest about 4 years after the last kid. By saying that the guy must have fallen or let himself go, you are sort of buying into the blue pill/female frame here. I’m sure her hamster perceives it that way, but it ain’t always so (or even usually).

I can’t speak for deti or emp, but for myself my contempt stems from my wife’s (and females’ generally) insistence that she doesn’t want and isn’t attracted to a masculine frame (along with the other things that go with it). It reminds me a great deal of a toddler throwing a tantrum that they’re not tired when it’s obvious they can barely keep their eyes open.

And that lack of self-awareness can easily come across as dishonesty when the situation is less clear cut. I can see that what she’s swearing to me is true isn’t true, but whether she’s lying or just hamsterbating is less certain.

I thought I was marrying an adult, but it often feels like I married a two year old. And that feeling plays hell with my attraction for her, regardless of her looks. Two year olds just don’t do it for me.

Men need to understand that in terms of rational behavior and decision making, that women simply aren’t your equal. Also, a seemingly well adjusted and bright women will have totally different behavior in a romantic relationships, she is simply a completely different person in that relationship because of the additional chemical and emotional ties that it produces. That why you absolutely need some sort of game and leadership to keep the relationship in a stable place. In terms of love, most women simply are not rational.

@crank
“It appears to be strongest about 4 years after the last kid” ill second that have seen this is three marriage breaks ups recently where the wife was not haaappppyyyyyy 5-6 years after the second kid was born, obvisiously there will never ever be academic evidece to support this as it would conflict with the feminine imperative.

Crank, you’ve got the cause-effect arrow backwards. Women don’t have a compulstion for serial mongamy, they have a compulsion for hypergamy. it’s hypergamy that drives serial monogomy, not the other way around.”

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. For the reasons you gave in your first post, it’s very unlikely that a woman will be do better for herself after popping out two kids than she did when younger, but I’ve seen too many times when she suddenly became disgusted with her husband even though he was the same guy she married (and more successful). The impulse for serial monogamy (rather than just hypergamy) would come from the benefit of genetic variety. It appears to be strongest about 4 years after the last kid.

I think there are multiple factors at work here. I’m not sure about the 4 years mark but it does seem that women who become unhaaapy seem to do so shortly after their last kid is out of diapers. I think the data showing a spike in divorce in years 5-10 of the marriage is likely due to this, and the “Boots are made for walking” paper reinforces that women are in fact driving divorce and this is driven by the opportunity to steal the marriage’s most valuable asset, the children.

However, there is another side to this. I think we would all agree that 1) The law not only permits frivorce by women, but does all it can to reward it. and 2) The media is selling frivorce 24×7 to women with wildly unrealistic expectations as with EPL and Stella, etc. and 3) The moral voice regarding marriage (the church) wavers from silent to giving divorcées active moral cover.

With all of the three above being true, you have to ask why don’t all wives divorce? Why have less than 40% of White women in their 60s in the US who ever married ever divorced?* If what you say is true that women are hardwired to divorce and diversify, what is preventing the rest from doing so? I think the answer is that the urge to diversify exists, but it isn’t the strongest instinct at work.

“Most men have pride in their own image. When they have to face the harsh reality that the person that they are is actually not that attractive, it hurts at the basest level. Having to use game invalidates who they grew up to be. That’s why older men have a harder time accepting it because the person that they became is shown to be the person that women don’t want.”

SunshineMary, this is EXACTLY why we get upset about female responses to game.

For you I’ll break my new rule of not explaining things to women.

Other reasons:

1. As boys, men trusted other adults to guide them into adulthood; and they have come to the unmistakable reality that the adults entrusted with the task not only didn’t know how to do it, or what to do or say; but that they royally f*cked it up and the boys in question had no choice in the matter.

2. The Matrix analogy is appropos. Men have to face the harsh reality that it isn’t just women they can’t manage. They discover their entire worldview is wrong; that everything they thought they knew about the world and the way people interact is wrong.

3. A big part of this is finding out the concealed truth about women’s sexuality, that it has a dark side, and that women will indulge that dark side with a man who pushes their attraction buttons.

Feminist society has done a spectacularly successful job of convincing most men that women are sugar and spice and everything nice; whitewashing female sexuality as inherently good and legitimate and pure and elevated; that sex is SPECIAL to a woman and she won’t give it up to just anybody; that women don’t really like sex and just give it up to get love from a worthy man; that women are attracted to male traits such as romanticism, provider bona fides, industriousness, conscientiousness, steadfastness, kindness, and gentleness. You see, we were told growing up that any girl who liked jocks, bad boys and dickheads was either colossally stupid or an inveterate slut. We were told that Christian girls and nonsluts are fundamentally different from sluts and promiscuous women. We were told that a girl’s “attraction triggers” were activated by things such as dinners, movies, supplication, asking for permission to escalate, kindness and dignity; not cocky-funny, big pecs, washboard abs, and witty banter.

And then we got into the real world, and learned the hard way about the darker aspects of female sexuality. We had girls feeling us up at high school house parties. We saw Christian girls whom we had known since we were five years old, touted as paragons of virtue and purity, wind up as pregnant 17 year old high school seniors. We saw some of those same Christian paragons of virtue and purity in the back seats of cars, feet in the air and prom dress around the waist, while Alpha McGorgeous jackhammered away.

We got college girlfriends after hookups and then could not figure out why they told us “I’m just not ready to get serious” when we turn on the nice and start talking about dinners and movies. We saw those very same girls hooking up with other men THE VERY NEXT DAY after breaking it off with us. We saw other girls hooking up with us in the fervent hope to snag husbands at a young age; while older women hooked up before it was too late. It looked the same to us but no one ever explained to us just how different it was.

We saw girls walking us back to their dorm rooms after meeting up at house parties and displaying extreme sexual aggressiveness after first meeting us about two hours before. We saw girls coming to our apartments to “hang out”, then walk us back to our bedrooms and drop to their knees. We saw young college women with 4.0 GPAs and full ride academic scholarships at parties talking about the stupidest things, getting more shitfaced by the minute, allowing Frank Fratboy (for the 15th time in a couple of years) to use and abuse them in the nastiest ways your imagination can conjure up, and then the next day honestly being completely unable to figure out why she doesn’t have a boyfriend.

We saw girls looking at us with the so-called “bedroom eyes” and wondering what it was because we’d never seen a woman look at us like that before. We saw girls cheating on boyfriends and being willing to do literally anything with their hookups while turning their BFs into pussybeggars.

We saw girls blowing and screwing hot men everywhere: on concrete floors behind the frat house bar, in the back seats of cars, in the men’s room at the college library, behind shrubs at the public park, in bar bathrooms, in the office conference room, in the bedrooms at house parties.

The amount of cognitive dissonance, helplessness and sheer rage this produces in a young man is difficult to explain or put into words.

I guess I’m one of those older guys – a few years older than Dalrock, it seems – who never expected women to be reasonable creatures in the same consistent way that men are reasonable creatures. I am genuinely trying to grokk the frame of the younger generation. I’ve mentioned before that I openly said around all women when I was growing up (1980’s for high school and college) that I would never marry unless we unequivocally agreed that I get the final say in all important decisions, period. No ifs, ands, or buts; and no, that didn’t mean I was volunteering to be social director and decide what to do to entertain her all the time in every stupid small decision. I expect her to make good choices so I dont have to override them very often. There is no substitute for making your expectations known and behaving consistently with those explicit
expectations.

Realizing that a woman is “one part child”, in the words of the Prophet Def Leppard, is just part of growing up. A helpmeet is not an equal. Women are glorious and terrible creatures, like men and also quite unlike men, prone to the same degrees of glorious self sacrifice and utterly debased selfish cruelty but with their own uniquely female character.

I can’t imagine wanting to marry a guy who happens to have girl parts. As another commenter said in another thread: welcome to reality, you’ll be spending the rest of your life here. A good woman will load your weapon for you, and warn you when the enemy has you flanked, but she isn’t a fellow soldier with male loyalty and courage who happens to have breasts. If you are determined to admire in your wife the very same things you admire in your best friend, that guy who has your back as only a man can, reality is going to disappoint you. But if she is a good woman – a big if these days – it isn’t her fault that she isn’t a guy with breasts, and once you’ve got your head on straight about that you’ll be happier.

I realize a lot of guys haven’t known and lived this “frame”, and it isn’t all that helpful to a man trapped in a cage with a feminist harpy. But if you are “gaming” your wife in the sense I just described and you find it disappointing that it actually works, actually makes her happier and makes the household run more smoothly, well, I’m going to gently suggest that this is one of those stopped clock times when “man up” is not bad advice. Adjust your own frame: girls will be girls, and if that wasn’t the case then all you’d be bringing to the table is your sperm.

Thank you. I am sorry you have that rule now as your explanations are usually very helpful.

deti wrote:

Feminist society has done a spectacularly successful job of convincing most men that women are sugar and spice and everything nice

Men have believed this about women. I do not think it was a feminist society that convinced them of this misinformation, though. It is a far older idea than feminism. In fact, I am not sure that this myth originates with women at all.

In reading through all the last bunch of comments, I am struck by how much more romantic men seem than women. Yes, we are not what you thought. We are much more pragmatic, realistic, and self-serving in some ways than men are.

It seems that some of the issues deti raised are much more globally existential than just male-female relationships. I didn’t catch that when I asked my original question. It sounds somewhat like what used to be called a mid-life crisis, only in modern days all men seem to be asking these questions, young and old. That is why I will bow out of the conversation now, because these are good things for men to discuss without a woman butting in. However, I do want to add only one point: most women are not capable of understanding what you are talking about here on any deep level. We do not have these issues IF we are mothers. No matter how good or crappy our lives may be, a woman who has children knows what her life is for and about. However, if one reads spinster blogs at all, one will notice *some* similarities in what they write with what deti has written.

Inability to keep commitments without the husband adding 20k in salary and getting a washboard stomach (or whatever) is not “girls will be girls.” If that’s just how it is and society not only refuses to check them, but actually rewards their inability to commit while providing moral cover, then women basically have a negative marriage value and are a horrible investment. If women don’t have any moral autonomy, but can always blame a nearby man for anything… then they are not adults and are not capable of negotiating.

Anyone telling guys to “man up” in the face of this really just saying that they need to bend over. Women and society need to give me something I can work with. (Is there anything in this for me? Is there any way I can safe guard my investment? I’m not seeing it.)

“my contempt stems from my wife’s (and females’ generally) insistence that she doesn’t want and isn’t attracted to a masculine frame (along with the other things that go with it). It reminds me a great deal of a toddler throwing a tantrum that they’re not tired when it’s obvious they can barely keep their eyes open.”

THIS. I keep hearing from my wife that this “game” stuff is a bunch of hocus pocus; that NAWALT; that rough sex doesn’t really turn her on; and that she likes the soft, gentle sex. But her actions and responses to that frame tell me differently. Sometimes I just think “please, just don’t talk because I know whatever is going to come out of your mouth is BS and you don’t even understand this stuff anyway, and it’s clear that as a younger woman men were running game on you and you absolutely ate it up. So don’t tell me that you don’t find masculine men attractive or that you don’t really notice it, because you do, and I know you do.”

SSM
Because staying healthy and attractive is innately good, in any and all ways, period, for men, for women, for young, for old, it is a valuable, honorable, worthy goal regardless of how anyone responds to it. Because there was NEVER immersion in teaching that THE OPPOSITE would be actually (wink) the best way to keep a man, there was never a tale that men REALLY want rolls of pastiness. Its never been institutionalized by society and or the church that its good to be unattractive.
Juxtapose that with what men get as wisdom. Its worse, men ARE actually taught NOT to care if she asymptotically approaches bovinity.

@dalrock
“With all of the three above being true, you have to ask why don’t all wives divorce? Why have less than 40% of White women in their 60s in the US who ever married ever divorced?* If what you say is true that women are hardwired to divorce and diversify, what is preventing the rest from doing so? I think the answer is that the urge to diversify exists, but it isn’t the strongest instinct at work. ”

I don’t dispute that, and I wasn’t saying that it was an overwhelming compulsion. This discussion arose because Jack insisted that, due to hypergamy, if a wife ejected after having a couple kids it must be that this guy had really let himself go. I’m simply saying that it happens all to often when her SMV has dropped (if anything) and his has gone up (if anything), so it’s not hypergamy driving – it’s a serial monogamy compulsion (which tends to manifest itself in her suddenly finding her husband incredibly annoying and repulsive). I suppose the fact that game can (allegedly) negate this effect to some extent is a counter argument to what I’ve said, but I still think there is something going on beyond hypergamy.

On a related note, I found (by accident) this very interesting article about the death of marriage from the perspective of a Black man. It seems he has found the red pill and is dispensing it. Of course I found it through a facebook link and the commentary was all negative, and none of it dealing with the issues.

“But why does it bother you that your wives are attracted to a more dominant masculine frame?”

I want to speak to this.

Once upon a time, it bothered me too. Why do I have to Dominate a woman? Why can’t she just be cool? Well, that was pretty whiny. I think the problem stems from everyone trying to stamp out our ego. I saw a shirt the other day that said “your ego is not your amigo” and have seen hipster tattoos to the same effect. In church, your ego is bad, and you must decrease, so Christ can increase.

I would speculate that men who have a hard time with the fact that they need to be Dominant with women in order to succeed with them- are this way because their egos are internally framed as bad or undesirable, equating to douchebag or bully or whatever derogatory term.

But once I tapped into my ego and let it run a little (especially when I realized that women are attracted to dudes who have a healthy ego) boy, did things change. It’s GOOD to have a strong ego. Your ego IS your amigo. I will never apologize for it again. I don’t mind the occasional rebuke if its a little too much, and I check myself- but usually its not that it was too much, its that its WORKING TOO WELL.

King Solomon wrote “vanity, vanity, all is vanity.”

ponder that real hard, and apply it to everything.

Bonus point- is perhaps even God vain? Does he not encourage us to praise him? In that vein, if we are made in His image, is our vanity or ego a God-given trait? In the parallels of Christ/bride, Husband/wife, Parent/child, wouldn’t it be natural for our bride to also be inspired to sing praises to the Man In Charge, and also natural for guys to desire the admiration?

Embrace your ego, brothers, channel your vanity and temper it, and see how it serves you.

Go ahead and be the Dominant figure in your woman’s life. unabashedly.

It’s no mystery why it works.

Be the King, and let Jesus be the King over you.

Many people who complain of a King are inherently glad and grateful to be ruled. They may never admit it, or realize it, but they are, and it manifests.

@Some Guy:Inability to keep commitments without the husband adding 20k in salary and getting a washboard stomach (or whatever) is not “girls will be girls.”

Oh, I agree. In fact I don’t think you take it nearly far enough. “Girls will be girls” doesn’t justify one single shit test, and if you haven’t ever heard yourself calmly saying “Sweetie, I appreciate it that you are upset but I don’t remember ever giving you permission to use me as an emotional toilet” and then either ignoring the subsequent rampage or accepting the subsequent apology (or both, typically in that order), you don’t have much experience acting like a man around women.

My comment was addressing the expressed disappointment that acting like men around their wives, because women are how they are in general, gets good results. They find their wives less attractive when their wives respond positively to masculine behaviour. (There weren’t a lot of specifics given, and I wasn’t trying to address some specific situation). My suggestion is that in that general kind of case he should man up. (There may be other things he should do too). Sabotaging success because that success comes from an emotionally disappointing understanding of how reality works is more of a female tendency than a male tendency: thus, man up.

koevoet:
Thanks. I hope it is helpful for someone, but at the very least commenting helps me work through my own thoughts on the matter.

Good comment, but I’m with Some Guy on this. You are absolutely correct that women are “one part child” and that women are not men with tits. That being said, some of here are working hard to unlearn the lies we were told and to learn and internalize the truth.

See, maybe you weren’t told and instructed this, but we were. We had it pounded into our heads that women were EXACTLY like men, only women can have babies. We were told that women can do everything men can do. We were told there really were no differences between men and women. We were told that women with sexual experience are good partners and that more sexual experience is a great thing for women. We were specifically instructed that women can talk, act, work and fuck like men with no ill effects whatsoever and that we were sexist pig assholes if we thought or said anything different.

We were specifically told and instructed at college that all men are potential rapists. At every turn we were threatened with grave consequences if we did anything that could remotely be construed as sexual harassment or chauvinism. Academic discipline. Persona non grata at University functions. “This incident will go on your permanent record.” Termination from paid positions helping you put yourself through school. Dismissal from the University. Referral of incidents to law enforcement or a district attorney. In the workplace, the consequences continue: Professional discipline. Suspension or revocation of professional licenses. Exclusion from professional societies. Salary cuts or denial of opportunities for advancement. Termination from paid positions. Again, “this will go on your permanent record.”

We were told that no means NO and that we had to have specific verbal permission to do anything, anything at all, sexual with a woman. Every stage of the escalation had to proceed at her pace and with her express permission. If you asked out a girl and she said no, you were specifically told that you were never, ever to even speak to that girl ever again. If you talked to a girl and she was offended by anything you did, said, looked at or thought, you were guilty of sexual harassment and subject to academic discipline or criminal prosecution.

In the workplace, you are not to touch any girl, ever, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. But if they ask for help, you cannot refuse to help. If you tell a woman she should carry that heavy object herself, you are creating a “hostile environment” and “discriminating on the basis of sex” and are therefore a sexual harasser. If you tell a woman you don’t have time to help, you are creating a hostile environment.

That’s an awful lot to unlearn, zippy. Your patience would be appreciated.

@deti — Egads, you went to the same education centers that I did! And while they fed me all that gravely vowed to never be like those bad men. (Wait… those “douche bag” jerks over there? The ones that women actually *like*, what?) And I knew that when I finally met the one, my “sensitive” manner would really be the thing that “did it” for her. Unlike all those other guys, I would be able to really *appreciate* her the way she needs. I know it. Some day….

So basically men that where clueless about how women actually are fashioned society around what women SAY they want instead of what they really want.

Also, it’s more horrifying when you find it was because a lot of these men were losers that thought they would get laid more if they made these mass changes to society and that was the main reason for doing so.

“Men have believed this about women. I do not think it was a feminist society that convinced them of this misinformation, though. It is a far older idea than feminism. In fact, I am not sure that this myth originates with women at all.”

What you are talking about is chivalry. The idea that women are sugar and spice and everything nice, and that men should prove themselves to these women. Women in medieval times found a way to leverage their sexual agency to gain power. Thus you had literal white knights running around getting down on their knees, singing songs, and doing disturbing painful things to get into the pants of an often already married woman. So yes this idea does originate with women. This idea is a device to gain some semblance of power over physically and intellectually stronger men. This is a device in service of the feminine imperative

I have spent years unlearning lies. It is an unpleasant, thankless business. I now have fewer friends, less tolerance, and more insight than ever before.

I am no gamer, pua or master charmer. I look mostly like an average schleb, 9-5 cubicle job and house in the suburbs. I use game to understand what the hell is going on in my interactions with women. The wife doesnt need much game. But i am shocked at how strongly women react to it.

And though i would never go back, there are plenty of days i wish i’d never stared. Being ignorant and deceived was so much more peaceful.

@deti:That’s an awful lot to unlearn, zippy. Your patience would be appreciated.

I hear you, Deti, I do. And I’m not completely naive to all that crap: I grew up when music was on MTV and Dr. Ruth Westheimer was telling the world all about “good” sex. I was young enough to be a target of lots of indoctrination in college and even some in high school, and old enough and/or lucky enough to be almost completely impervious to it. Plenty of what you guys talk about resonates with my own experiences, in retrospect. And I’m not going to take the “I got mine” line with you guys. I was very fortunate in the timing of things, seen from the perspective of today, though it hasn’t all been wine and roses: I don’t share many personal details on line so I’m not going to make it about me. But I recognize that the “frame” I’ve always lived in is a gift of Providence, and that many others are not so fortunate.

I understand that coming from that ruthless indoctrination it may seem disappointing to a guy that the woman he thought of as his equal in the foxhole isn’t that at all, and couldn’t be even if she wanted to: that distorted attraction triggers in the man may need to be deprogrammed over time, and it can be painful and difficult to go through. I acknowledge all that.

But he’s (our hypothetical he: I don’t pretend to lecture any particular commenter here) got to set his sights on the prize. There may be a bit of a dark valley to go through, where he feels that women are less attractive because he is disappointed that they just inherently aren’t as (especially emotionally) mature as men, generally speaking. I’ve got to believe that that will pass. Women aren’t men, but they also aren’t inherently incapable of relating to men and living with men: genuinely masculine men. I give you seven billion people on planet earth as evidence, all of whom arrived through the relations of men and women.

It will get better for him, but only if he moves forward. Sabotaging success isn’t going to help that. If he’s found something that is honest and produces real improvements, he should try not to be disappointed by success. If he can’t help feeling disappointed, well, I’d just try to ignore the disappointment. Contempt kills attraction. Don’t feed the demons, they only get hungrier.

What you are talking about is chivalry. The idea that women are sugar and spice and everything nice, and that men should prove themselves to these women. Women in medieval times found a way to leverage their sexual agency to gain power. Thus you had literal white knights running around getting down on their knees, singing songs, and doing disturbing painful things to get into the pants of an often already married woman.

And yet even in medieval times, the chivalric ideal was limited to upper class women and men. The average peasant James and Jane (or Fyodor and Katrina) weren’t interested in chivalry. BUT one thing that informed chivalry that is indeed lost today, is that there was a very honest view of what a woman brought to the table. All the chivalry in the world was directed towards women who were to be (at least in theory) virgins. Women were valued because they could give a heir and continue the lineage. Once women degraded their own sexuality by open trading on the sexual market, the value of women will consequently go waaaay down.

To put it in economic terms, the market has been flooded with cheap pussy, but women want men to pay premium prices for it (at least beta men). Meanwhile in the marriage market, the supply of quality wives has rapidly declined, with bad currency chasing out the good so that even good women are now suspect. Under this sexual economic regime, men have every incentive to pay the lowest price possible if all they want is pussy, by becoming players. Men have every incentive to avoid the marriage market entirely or to ‘shop’ in niche markets for goods that have not been damaged and whose quality is relatively assured.

“most women are not capable of understanding what you are talking about here on any deep level. We do not have these issues IF we are mothers. No matter how good or crappy our lives may be, a woman who has children knows what her life is for and about.”

“By “these issues” I mean that women don’t ponder the meaning of their lives and if they have perhaps missed out on what they really wanted.”

I disagree. If you had said “We do not have these issues IF we are mothers AND we care about our families AND we can put others’ interests ahead of our own”, then I might have agreed with you. I’ve seen too many women feed their own children to the divorce meat grinder to agree. I’ve seen too many women put themselves above their own children when in unhaaaaappy marriages, spurred on by crappy “marriage counselors” and “you go, grrrrrrl” pseudo-friends.

I’ve also seen many, many women engage in the sort of navel gazing, introspective, regretful analysis that Cautiously and I have been doing. Many of them are married women with children; many are divorced women with children (the most recent example being LIsa Whelchel).

Yet I would say that in accepting Kingship over me, and letting my own ego flow, my ego is best served not by being catered to, but by seeing to it that my kingdom is well cared-for.

Love IS service, and the service I do for those I love, is done because it pleases me to do it. Service is not just a feminine trait- Any good King is indeed a servant too, just as Christ was, washing disciples’ feet, every bit still in charge.

To presume that I could have a family, tame a woman, provide for all, raise up children that honor me, and prosper in this difficult world- is the height of vanity. It is a far greater mountain to climb than notches on a bedpost. This sort of vanity is good for me and mine.

I am very interested in watching deti struggle with this (unmarried so haven’t experienced it, but have certainly thought about it though), but have nothing to offer. I do have something to offer Samuel’s ego discussion though. One type of ego I have found useful and yet less dangerous is ego dependent on God. Think “my dad could beat up your dad.”

I’ve seen too many women put themselves above their own children when in unhaaaaappy marriages, spurred on by crappy “marriage counselors” and “you go, grrrrrrl” pseudo-friends.

I’ve also seen many, many women engage in the sort of navel gazing, introspective, regretful analysis that Cautiously and I have been doing.

Exactly what I was thinking when I was shocked.
And on the navel gazing, sheesh folks, its some reflective comments made spontaneously on a blog. I seriously doubt Deti or anyone else is driving through the corn field flat lands weeping and listening to Air Supply songs wondering what might have been.

“Sabotaging success because that success comes from an emotionally disappointing understanding of how reality works is more of a female tendency than a male tendency: thus, man up.”

Perhaps so; but I think it is more logically disappointing than emotionally so. I hope I am not emotionally invested in what does not make logical sense. For me the problem is the absolute necessity to unlearn what does not work and replace it with what does, and to do so on a consistent basis.

“There may be a bit of a dark valley to go through, where he feels that women are less attractive because he is disappointed that they just inherently aren’t as (especially emotionally) mature as men, generally speaking. I’ve got to believe that that will pass.”

It’s not that women are less attractive. I still want to bang 70% of them. It is that women are in fact much less deserving of the deference and respect we used to bestow on them simply because of their gender. Before learning game I was happy to sit back and let her run everything. I wouldn’t do that now for anything, for fear she’ll run it into the ground.

The other thing I think you’re missing here, zippy, is the herculean effort it requires of a man to learn an entirely new way of relating to the world, and the connection he has to what everyone told him was the right thing to do. When you have a wife and children, and you know game, and your wife responds to it; you have only two choices:

1. continue and improve at great cost and investment of time and effort; or
2. return to the way it was, marital deterioration, and certain divorce or grinding misery.

I totally understand MGTOW, with so many men saying “The hassle, the shit tests, the drama, the money, the time? Pu**y ain’t worth it.”

@ Deti, “I have had to ask these things about myself as a man — not as a married man, or a son or brother, or a husband, or a father, or an employee, but as a man. I have had to go all the way back to just me, without reference to any roles I play or jobs I have or expectations others have of me. And questioning all of this, examining the very foundations of the beginnings of your life, realizing that those foundations must be destroyed and the materials thrown away; and that I have to find new material and build a new foundation, is very, very difficult. Those old foundations were built with substandard materials and not to the required specifications. They are now rotting from the inside out. They were never suited to support the structure, and their flaws have been exposed for all to see. It is that I MUST destroy those foundations, or they will destroy me. I MUST build a new foundation, or the house I have built will fall of its own weight.”

It sounds to me that this is what you are experiencing,

“Richard Rose developed a system which he described as the “retreat from untruth,” an examination of personal belief systems and lifestyles. In that system one discards what one finds to be false on a case-by-case basis. He believed a spiritual Ultimate truth exists and can be found for oneself with sufficient application of effort, and recommended skeptical approaches such as his.” from Wikipedia

I think the disappointment that comes with game success is partly because we men, even when we know better, really do want our women to be special snowflakes. Women don’t labor under that same delusion.

A woman whose dinner date seems bored knows that she can go in the restroom and adjust her blouse to show a couple more inches of cleavage, come back out and lean closer to him and lick her lips, and she’ll have his attention. That this works like clockwork with almost any man doesn’t depress her (though it does cause a certain amount of cynicism). She’s always known that men are all driven by the same urges, so this predictability doesn’t bother her. Men (except the players) don’t like to think women are predictable. We may not want them to be as random as the weather, but we don’t want them to be as predictable as our power tools either.

There’s a nature/nurture thing here too. Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, the conventional wisdom today is that we’re born blank slates mentally, especially in the area of personality. People might concede under duress that shy parents are a bit more likely to have shy kids (for example), but beyond that, it’s assumed that your personality is entirely a unique product of your upbringing, your environment, and your choices about what kind of person you want to be. Any personality quirks you are unhappy with can be fixed with some willpower — the shy just need to get out there more, the person drawn to food just needs to push the plate away, the angry just need to count to ten, etc.

So anyone making the argument that personality A) is significantly driven by biological forces that can be understood and measured, B) is fairly predictable, and C) can be manipulated by some nerd who spent a few hours at a seminar learning how, is challenging that fundamental understanding of humanity. To the average modern person, that’s like finding out you’re secretly a robot and someone just found your OFF switch. Disconcerting, to say the least.

good point. It’s good to be self-assured, or assured of salvation, but beyond that the Lord has been sure that I know to my very core that He has no problem letting me get my ass kicked REAL bad, or generally wreck myself.

It’s just that when Joshua said “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”

that was a decree, and one he would obviously enforce. I don’t know if that is ego or not, but he knew what was right and was determined to run his house according to his convictions, and saw to it personally.

@deti:The other thing I think you’re missing here, zippy, is the herculean effort it requires of a man to learn an entirely new way of relating to the world, and the connection he has to what everyone told him was the right thing to do.

I don’t know that I am missing that. I already acknowledged that it can be extremely difficult. Suppose I stipulate that it is an eleven out of ten on the difficulty scale. Does that change anything? Should that change my advice to “OK, stew in it for a while” rather than “eye on the prize”? I don’t think so.

I’ve already sympathized with the difficulty of deprogramming. I’m not sure what would satisfy the appetite for empathy here.

When you have a wife and children, and you know game, and your wife responds to it; you have only two choices:

1. continue and improve at great cost and investment of time and effort; or
2. return to the way it was, marital deterioration, and certain divorce or grinding misery.

Yes, well, Death or Cake, that is hardly a choice. What kind of man does our protagonist want to be? When does he get past the grieving stage and get to work? I’d buy him a beer and empathize, but I’m not going to encourage him to wallow in it and feed the demons. I think the medicated twice-weekly therapy society founded on the Gospel according to Oprah has things backwards: the demons only get hungrier when you constantly feed them. It is useful for other men in the same boat to see that their experience is hardly singular; and it is useful to get the sympathy and advice of other men to some extent. But then what? There quickly comes a time to let it go, make a decision, don’t look back, and get on with life. Especially when there are kids in the picture.

I’ve seen too many women feed their own children to the divorce meat grinder to agree. I’ve seen too many women put themselves above their own children when in unhaaaaappy marriages, spurred on by crappy “marriage counselors” and “you go, grrrrrrl” pseudo-friends.

Yep. I consistently see that the father is usually the only parent who puts the children above himself. The mother usually sees the children as accessories to HER life, and quite happily wrecks their lives just for short-term payoff…

This is exactly the opposite of what our culture demands people believe. But the evidence of which parent actually cares more, is seen every day.

@ empath
I think I may have offended you unintentionally. I always respect your comments – please accept my apologies. I never referred to anyone navel gazing, of course. I just don’t think women with children ponder the kinds of questions deti was raising, that’s all. I have observed spinsters worrying endlessly what their lives are for, but never women with children doing so. That is NOT to say that women with children are not able to be duplicitous, evil, scheming, solipsistic, back-stabbing, hypergamous frivorce-seekers. It is just to say that they do it with no introspection.

@ Dalrock “With all of the three above being true, you have to ask why don’t all wives divorce? Why have less than 40% of White women in their 60s in the US who ever married ever divorced?* If what you say is true that women are hardwired to divorce and diversify, what is preventing the rest from doing so? I think the answer is that the urge to diversify exists, but it isn’t the strongest instinct at work.”

I really believe that the age 55 – 60 is the break from when society taught responsibility as a first priority, to the Hippy lesson of do what feels good. I am 54 and was just a tad young to join in the first full wave of the sexual revolution. It was drummed into me, that responsibility was paramount. You make a commitment, you stick to it. Respect was deeper then love, etc. Most of the western world turned from that in the late sixties early seventies, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

But on the bright side, my 2 boys, 19 and 20, and a lot of their friends, though enjoying the freedoms that have happened in the last 50 years, are some of the most responsible people I know! Was that from their upbringing, or is it that the pendulum has started to arc in the opposite direction?

@deti:It is that women are in fact much less deserving of the deference and respect we used to bestow on them simply because of their gender. Before learning game I was happy to sit back and let her run everything. I wouldn’t do that now for anything, for fear she’ll run it into the ground.

The bill of goods is in the why. Men look after women because, like children, they need looking after. The kind of deference and respect that it is natural for men to give to women is not all that different from the deference and respect we naturally give to children; and it is precisely because as men we are generally speaking (though not always in particular cases) more logical, less emotional, better in tune with cause and effect, stronger, more competent to the task, more objective, better able to take care of ourselves, and just generally more mature.

On that traditional understanding of male deference to the female, putting her in charge is like letting a ten year old run IBM or Yahoo. Hah!

Feminism has completely broken this, drawing on a civilizational surplus created by men. I believe this can go on for a very, very long time, despite the predictions of imminent doom and gloom from various quarters. But that doesn’t change my advice to men who realize that they need deprogramming and are disappointed that the deprogramming is actually working in their personal lives. And I really do think it will get easier with time.

@SSM- I have an aunt who, when her two children were grown, had a gnawing question come to bear:

“what’s the point of it all?”

She was an atheist, so of course there’s no point. It seemed, though, that her kids only served as a distraction and a facade of meaning, and still found that she could not hide from the introspection forever. Neither did she ever produce an answer.

I really believe that the age 55 – 60 is the break from when society taught responsibility as a first priority, to the Hippy lesson of do what feels good.

That may be*, but even if you look at younger women the same pattern is there. 90.2% of White Non Hispanic women in their 40s had ever married. 34.8% (of all women in that group, not just those who had married) had ever divorced. The older you look at the more likely they were to have ever married, and the more opportunity to have divorced as well, which is why I picked women in their 60s. If you go too old mortality starts to really skew the data. I’ve also shown that both in the US and in the UK divorce rates drop dramatically as women age (and even have data for the UK showing this back to the 1950s). So women in their 40s are already past their peak divorce years, and of course even more so for those in their 50s.

*I don’t know if this fits the specific years you had in mind, but there is a wave of divorce which follows the boomers.

“People say I’m no good, crazy as a loon. Cuz Ket stoned in the morning, get drunk in the afternoon. Kinda like my old blue tick hound I like to lay around in the shade and I don’t want for much a nothing at all cuz I damn shore got it made.

Poor girl wants to marry, rich girl wants to flirt. Rich man goes to college, poor man goes to work. The drunkard wants another drink of wine and the politician wants a vote, I don’t want mucha nothing at all but I will take another toke…

Preacher man talking on the TV putting down the RocknRoll. Wants me to send a donation cuz he’s worried about my soul. He said Jesus walked on the water and I know that is true but sometimes I think that preacher man would like to do a walking too –

I aint asking nobody for nothing that I can’t get it on my own.

You don’t like the way I’m a living – you can leave this long haired country boy alone”

Dalrock, K. Obviously for older woman, their sexuality is lessening and the granny hormone is taking over. But for men? I just got a decent lookover/smile by a late thirty something at the bank this morning, dressed in my work clothes (plumber).

Could be the comfortableness of being with someone for 25/40 years and just not wanting to invest the more limited time/energy that we have left on this rock, into a new relationship.

I guess I can agree that there is a lack of that type of introspection….or let me caveat, lack of HONEST introspection, the hypothetical she is ALWAYS introspecting. The drama comes from within, and when there is no drama within, there are plenty of external sources from which to draw.

But know this…The Personal Jesus IS Introspection, he IS her. So, prayer and spirituality for the churchian woman is little more than poorly understood, superficial introspection, hence the familial destruction sans guilt.

I will tell you that the Red Pill / Blue Pill Choice was forced upon me when I was 37. At that time everything in my marriage went totally wrong in an instant. The problem for me was that Red/Blue choice was presented in the form a very emotionally nuclear situation caused wholly by my wife that nobody could have prepared for. When I say nobody, I mean nobody, It was so bad I couldn’t even figure out how to leave the marriage for a while, tho I started working on it subconsciously. So, it has taken me almost 5 years to accept the Red Pill because of all the trauma. However, once I did, it has taken me about three months to begin to internalize the truths of the SMP and wash away a lifetime of pretty little lies. I feel so much better, and my relations with women are much improved.

Like I said before and many have also said, the education in gender relations many of us “good men” from Gen-X on have received has been a “well intentioned” sham that is entrenched in society. But some of us have it even worse. You add parents, scout leaders, religious mentors, etc. into the mix and the lies are immense. It truly is like living in the Matrix. Taking the Red Pill is tantamount to extreme culture shock and I went through the anxiety attacks to prove it.

For that reason, not many men will take the pill willingly. The question to ask, is society forcing the Red/Blue pill choice because of the painful actions of modern women on the legions of good beta men as a whole, or must the circumstance of each man bring him to that point?

For the older ones of us, as someone pointed out, it may be what could be called midlife crisis 2.0, but why does the anxiety necessary to foster change stretch to the 20-somethings? Regardless, how many men will soothe the anxiety in unhealthy ways, ghost or double down on mainlining blue pill to make the pain go away?

I have a younger co-worker who is so like the blue-pill me it is scary. He has told me he has now been the “boyfriend before they get engaged/married” for the 4th time, and tho he is witty, very fit, well employed and intelligent, he’s a mess in the relationship department. He’s in his mid 20s and on the verge of the Red/Blue Pill choice….I see it in him. I’m 42 and we are at the same place? What does this say about the state of the SMP?

I have always known that both of my grandfathers would be considered players by today’s standards. One was good enough that he scored 9s and 10s in his wives and girlfriends. I have aunts and cousins that were models and state/national level pageant queens in their day, (and hypergamous as all get out) so yes there is proof in the pudding. However, both my parents shunned that activity of their fathers by filling me with years of “don’t do that.” Trouble is, one was married for 75+ years to my grandmother, and the other, well, my grandmother pined for him til his death, even after she divorced him in the 50s for being a cad. Why do I have the feeling my grandfathers had it right?

It is rather late in the comments for me to post this, but since you moderate you might notice it.
We are close in age, me maybe one or two older than you. Discovered this whole community rather by accident three years ago while producing content for another venue.
Saying the above, we are on the older side of the players (not meant in the PUA lingo) in this community. I have always been pleasantly surprised by the men younger than me and saw them as more knowledgeable and mature than my peers were at the same age. What does good judgment come from? Experience. What does experience come from? Bad judgment. They have experienced a horrible world for young men that I know well and suffered for it until they figured out the new game of life. Thinking about potential ideas or insights for writing I see them already written and impressively at that. The question is not the condescending, “How did these young inexperienced guys get it so well?” Rather it is, “Why did I get it before even the wide use of the Internet?” In pondering this one can see how we have to look at the country and how trends start, the role of cities, immigrant groups, differing religions and even human migratory patterns.
My parents were not even boomers. They were part of the silent generation and had their children late. Great marriage and great parents, what I see around me, yuck. I think enough background.

What struck me about this post is your discussion of what you observed in college:

“But there is another side to this. Younger men, the ones now in high school, college, and perhaps a few years older, live in a very different world than the one older men came of age in. When I was in college in the late 80s and early 90s, half of all women still married before the age of 24. As I explained here, this influenced the actions of women going back to their late teens. Very large numbers of women were still interested in having a steady boyfriend while in college, and soon thereafter marriage. If you were a man in college without a girlfriend, at least you saw your friends having girlfriends, and you saw the men just a few years older than you getting married.

Now the majority of women are spending a decade after coming of age sexually pursuing a small percentage of the most attractive men. When given the choice, young women have overwhelmingly chosen hookups over commitment. If you are a young man witnessing this, the lie my peers and I were brought up with that women naturally commit for life is forever exploded. The flower of women’s youth is now dedicated to the men who can generate the most “tingles”. In this environment the answer to the question of why young women are focused on the attention of a small number of men (and how to possibly join those men) is a secret the KGB couldn’t have kept. Even if you aren’t able or interested in joining the small group of men, the truth of game will be in front of you every day.”

In a nutshell, I saw and experienced the SMP as it is now. And, this situation was very consistent in the suburban and outer-borough communities of New York City. This is the only reason for my being ahead of my time. What you are describing above in your college years recounts the history of those thirty years older in these communities. Actually, this makes sense and is indirectly validated when you look at the fallout. My peers experienced a parental and personal divorce culture way above the national averages. The reason is that their fathers married sluts and the character, bonding and planning issues discussed in this community applied. When I was in college we saw the born-again virgins, defensive dating, the choir, cuckolding, neo-traditionalists and PUA’s. I would say that slightly more than half of the young people that I knew married before 24. However, these were not to the “college boyfriend” rather to the guy who was glad to be last in line and thrilled to get a slut before he graduated. Here is the rub, none of the marriages of any that I have tracked have lasted. Usual formula is two kids, eight years, house and divorced. Of the remaining, they fall into the late married not enjoying it, often divorced, their kids going way wrong.

One thing that I find particularly funny is that a manosphere author was giving advice recently (my apologies, I do not remember which blog) to females looking to have a somewhat respectable future by not slutting it up in their prime attractiveness years. The advice was to do that in high school and save college for getting serious about picking a good beta. Yep, I saw that big time where I am and my business has put me in contact with many of my contemporaries in the metro area. Guess what, you got it, a trend. We could even pick them out in my conservative, religious grammar school where such problems were common. G-d knows they were even starting then. Want to guess the quality and length of the marriages to these sluts?

What is being illustrated is the reason for young men being so plugged-in to the ideas discussed here. It has nothing to do with the internet, this community of common mind, books written, pundits, statistics, evolution, devolution or even chemicals in the food or drinking water. The simple answer is that they have eyes and ears. They see and experience it as did my contemporaries and they still have the honesty of youth. Instead of being prisoners of their own minds or making their lives miserable by trying to share their thoughts with their immediate circle, they have found a place to be free and retain their sanity and share notes. There is an old line that writers know. You write for your audience. If you are reading this (or participating in the community), it was written for you.

If you have experienced enough shit in life, you don’t need to be told what it is. You know it by its smell.

@SSM
“In reading through all the last bunch of comments, I am struck by how much more romantic men seem than women. Yes, we are not what you thought. We are much more pragmatic, realistic, and self-serving in some ways than men are.”

One of the fundamental differences between men and women is that men want to build and create. We don’t see the world in a “this is how things are, how can I get mine” sort of way. We see the world in a “how can I improve this for myself, my friends/family and those around me”. This leads us to form groups, research and develop new ideas and technology and ultimately to lead families and nations. This difference has led directly to men forming civilization.

It also makes us much more romantic and idealistic than women could ever hope to be. Women are “pragmatic, realistic and self-serving” because they, generally, do not have the capacity to dream and strive to make things better for themselves and others. Their gifts tend to make them consolidate their own resources while not improving them. This is why when women are in charge, things stagnate fast. Ideally, this is supposed to “ground” a young man. To give him a reason to strive to change the world, while also making sure that he doesn’t forget the “here and now”. Up until the current Feminist idiocy took root, it worked very well.

There’s a lot that I could discuss about this idea, but I wanted to give you some context for your comment.

[young men] don’t have to learn [game] from the internet, they hear it from the very men their female peers are falling all over.

Watching and learning from guys who had great success with women DEFINITELY was part of my youth, and part of the youthful experience of everyone I know who wasn’t awkward around women. I agree you can’t hide this information. Nost young men will turn up almost any rock to find an edge that’ll help them get what they want(women). But on the other hand thinking back there were lots of guys who steadfastly refused to develop any game. Some of those guys were bitter that women weren’t as nice and focused on looking for a “nice guy” as they had been led to believe. Anyways most of both groups of guys eventually get married. It’s hard for me to say conclusively which (guys with game or guys without game) experiences more divorce. One thing I strongly suspect however, is that learning informally from friends can never break the dynamics of attraction down to [almost] a science like they do in the Game/seduction community. Really widespread dissemination of hard core game could be far more disruptive than what will inevitably spread among young men by word of mouth.

I feel for the omegas that Game will never help. Game helps the most the people that are in the middle already in other attributes that women find attractive. If a guy is obese and has low social intelligence, Game won’t help and these people are the ones that will be staunch denalists because of sour grapes.

Where as before, job/money would land them a partner, that simply won’t cut it anymore and they are mad as hell about it.

You shouldn’t take the advice from a homeless man about how savings and working a job doesn’t work. Likewise, dismiss any comments on attraction techniques from people that don’t have the genetic capability to implement any type of Game since even Game must have a base level in other areas (looks and social IQ) to be attempted.

My only issue with The Real Peterman is that I don’t want him to discourage others.

@TFH:
1 – Apparently Keoni Galt defends “game” of some description. I checked his website; it doesn’t seem to have a contact email.
I will suspend judgement on Keoni Galt until I can get him to verify that his “Game” has a substantial debt to Roosh/Roissy/etc.
2 –
“your own comment accepts that he succeeded in countries where he wrote ‘Bang’ books”
No, you are wrong about that, I am afraid Roosh really is a failure.

quote:
“So a guy whose dedicated all his adult life to picking up women can’t get laid in 2 weeks in Canada. How bad is Roosh’s game?”

See also the 20 Oct post at
2012/10/guest-post-uber-alpha-manosphere.html
quote: “Mentu notes that right off the bat that Roosh and his lackey bloggers have serious GAME in the field, if by game, you mean having conversations that don’t result in anything concrete happening”
Hat tip to Höllenhund for original link to that site.
3 – As for whether I “really” understand game – let’s get Keoni Galt to weigh in on his definition of “game” and see whether it matches Roosh’s and Roissy’s, then we can worry about whether I understand it.

@Alpha Dog:
“The main problem with game is that is hard work. It involves putting up with rejections, bitch shields, cock blockers, flakes, etc. Some people have compared game to diet or exercise advice, and I agree with this assessment.”
Another objection to game is that the people selling the advice don’t appear to be getting as much sex as they claim. So their advice is quackery unsupported by empirical results.
If someone like Errol Flynn gives advice on how to have sex with lots of women, one can inspect his record and see that he indeed had lots of sex. If someone like Roissy gives advice, all one has is Lady Raine’s allegation that his real name is so-and-so – one still doesn’t have proof about how much sex Roissy has gotten by means of game.

@TFH:
“Race nationalists (of any race) don’t like it if men of a different race start ‘taking’ ‘their’ women.”
Race nationalists of that kind object to successful sexual miscegenation. If game worked for Roosh, Quebecois nationalists would have lynched Roosh. In fact, game didn’t work for Roosh, so the local men left him unharmed.

I will suspend judgement on Keoni Galt until I can get him to verify that his “Game” has a substantial debt to Roosh/Roissy/etc.

Go to Heartiste and search for a post titled ‘One Reader’s Journey’. It is a tribute to Keoni Galt’s LTR Game, from when he went by the name Dave in Hawaii…

If game worked for Roosh, Quebecois nationalists would have lynched Roosh. In fact, game didn’t work for Roosh, so the local men left him unharmed.

That is completely illogical. For one thing, Roosh looks rather white (and is classified as such by the US Census Bureau’s definition of ‘white’).

At any rate, Roosh has succeeded in many places, just not all of them. Among other things, long-time denizens here know that he hooked up with another female commenter known as Anoukange, who was attractive. They became hostile to each other after that, but she did admit that she had sex with him many times.

I’m not a strict determinist, but I wonder if this whole debacle is just the opening curtain to something much greater in the end. If you consider things like feminism and modern culture as more enemies for Jesus to defeat, I think it must be an amazing thing that so many people are seeing the deception for what it is and rising up against it like one would expect from that assumption. It’s a real tragedy that so many people have suffered, and I myself am not without damage from the feminist hysteria of the last century, but I look back on what I was and while not perfect now I am in a better place. So I really appreciate blogs like yours, Dalrock.

I remember reading about the debate between Christian ascetics and mainstream back in the old days, a millennium ago. At the time I never understood how they could have that kind of opinion, but the Androsphere has been a real eye opener. I don’t know if there will be a complete collapse, but assuming computers survive the time to come, this period could live as a near-permanent testimony to the true nature of women after the realignment inevitably comes. Women considering the future too little (if at all) is always their downfall, in the end.

I still linger on a college campus, and even the liberals there now often show a shocking understanding of female nature. It could just be how Southern culture is, and women still call for Southern gentlemen, but largely it would still appear as if reality wins out in the end. So I don’t think there is a need to worry that young men aren’t discovering this, it isn’t much of a secret anymore. Feminism’s victims produce broken families and lineages that must inevitably die out, so it must destroy itself and we young men will never forget the abuses they piled on us.

But on the other hand thinking back there were lots of guys who steadfastly refused to develop any game. Some of those guys were bitter that women weren’t as nice and focused on looking for a “nice guy” as they had been led to believe.

Because being a nice guy isn’t just something they pretend to be. It’s what they are. It’s like running a marathon and then being told that you were lied to BY THE SAME PERSON YOU WERE RUNNING THE MARATHON FOR, and that you should have been running in the other direction. Pissed off? Hell yes!

What motive then exists to ‘man up’ and start jogging all the way back? What’s the prize? People talk about the ‘prize’ and being successful but what does that mean in this context?

When you discover that rapper thugs talking about b!tches and ho’s have a more accurate view of the world than you do, it really takes the wind from your sails. You spent your life holding these creeps in contempt because of how destructive they are to those around them, themselves, and how they treat women. Then you watch women flocking to them… and you try to tell yourself that it’s just ‘those’ type of women, but that rings increasingly hollow as time goes on.

Don’t despair though, when your wallet is fat enough and their youth is fading, they might just grace you with the right to fund their lifestyle for as long as it pleases them.

Problem is, you’re still a nice guy, and you’re proud of being one. You make things better for those around you, you’re productive, you help others, and you treat them with respect. It’s who you are.

And then someone comes along and tells you what already halfway suspect, that if you were more thuggish and creepy you would have more success with women. What’s very clear is that you are unwanted. She isn’t attracted to you. She is attracted to creeps. You can pretend to be something that you aren’t and if you keep that pretense up for years, you just might avoid being dumped, or destroyed in a divorce rape…or you might not. So you start to see women in the same light that the thugs and creeps see them because it’s what you see in front of you, even if you don’t care to treat them that way.

I mean, you are supposed to put in a great deal of effort to acquire a woman who fundamentally doesn’t like you. She wants cash, creeps and prizes. If that’s who she is, then she really isn’t worth much. You cannot help but wonder at the value of what you are getting for that effort.

“The Manosphere is the bastard child of another blog that no longer exists.

That place was called “Roissy in D.C.” The Manosphere arose from the comment threads of that place.

The Spearhead, In Mala Fide, and other blogs to numerous to mention have been inspired by both Roissy’s blogging and the debates and commentary in the threads of his daily blog posts that regularly got 800+ comments. Til this very day, people discover the archives of Roissy in D.C. over at Chateau Heartiste, and they find THE RED PILL.”

To the disbelievers: to understand why game works, think about a female athlete you think is totally hot when you see a photo. Then think about how you feel when you see that athlete on TV and she has a mannish demeanor, a deep masculine voice, and generally comes off a non-female. She’s still nice looking but lacks the oomph factor to turn you on because of her generally “mannish” persona.

To the disbelievers: to understand why game works, think about a female athlete you think is totally hot when you see a photo.

It is a lost cause. 80% of men and 99% of women just cannot ever, ever, ever comprehend Game, even if you explain it to them in extreme detail in the simplest terms. The only noteworthy point is that their entire position desperately insists that Game has no value in LTRs.

The funny thing is, a large number of men (myself included) can attest that Game helped them make major improvements. We have no reason to praise Game if it did not help us, nor have we spent money on seminars, etc. (in fact, I keep saying that there is no need to spend much money on seminars or coaching to learn Game).

It can’t help men who refuse to put in the effort, and some will get a lot more out of X amount of effort than others (introvert vs. extrovert seems to be the biggest separator). But the ‘Game doesn’t exist’ crowd just can’t account for why a lot of serious, 30+, non-PUA-type guys keep saying that Game has been valuable to them.

Even accepting at face value a man claiming “game helped him” which I doubt most of the time, its a very simple equation:

Correlation /= Causation.

No PUA or game fraud has even produced, or allowed a scientific study to test the claims of Game, PUA, RSD, Dark Triad Game (As practiced in the so-called Roissysphere) or any other attraction system. Anecdote, that’s all “game” can claim.

“Problem is, you’re still a nice guy, and you’re proud of being one. You make things better for those around you, you’re productive, you help others, and you treat them with respect. It’s who you are.”

I’m not really a nice guy. I’ve been called arrogant or an A hole more times than I can remember. I’ve had enough sex that I’m not pissed off about that. I enjoy watching people suffer if they have earned that result, I enjoy this too much sometimes. I see game as self evident and use it in my casual relationships.

However with people who are close to me, or someone doesn’t deserve what happened to them I am a nice guy. I train all the young guys at my work because no one else has the time or inclination for it. I help my friends move. I’m the guy they visit when they are having trouble with their partners. When I holiday in the third world I budget money to give to charity. And if someone close to me is suffering I have a strong compulsion to help them out. I’ve shared beers with more than one newly divorced guy and let them bitch for hours at me while trying to give them some good advice.

But with game now I find out I have to become more distant with the person I care about most in the world. Treating this person with the caring that comes naturally to me will harm my relationship. I don’t doubt this is true, I just don’t like it. Without that side of me I am just an arrogant A hole. I have to become a worse person to have successful relationships. I have never been a pushover, I always pushed back. I can’t be bullied but I can be manipulated by using my better nature against me. Now rather than just being myself I have to pull back and question if the person I care about most in the world is just using me. That sucks so much. And most of the time they don’t even realize they are doing it. Such is the nature of women.

I don’t doubt game works but once one really accepts the red pill, well I wonder if I can even love a woman anymore. Certainly you can’t trust them. Some part of me still has hope, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. But looking at your wife crying and wondering if going to comfort her is the wrong thing to do – thats pretty destructive right there.

I’m not really a nice guy. I’ve been called arrogant or an A hole more times than I can remember.

I am a nice guy, born and bred. If I can help someone deserving I will.

I’ve had enough sex that I’m not pissed off about that.

I think for most average guys it’s more than that. It’s being sold a bill of goods by those you should have been able to trust. It’s being pigeonholed into a role in society where you basically act as a cleanup crew for scumbags, both feminine and masculine. You pay for their little indiscretions, you pay for their make-work jobs, you pay for their college playtime, you are constantly told what a brute you are, while they cheerfully date guys who really are what they accuse you of being. Finally, you get the pleasant option of marrying them when they are used up and can’t get anyone they really want.

They found out that the part they are supposed to play in the whole rotten mess is the perpetual loser. And they don’t like it. It’s one thing if they have to wait 10 or 15 years and finally end up with the girl. That’s a rotten deal, but at least it’s something. But not even that is on offer. They then as often as not, get fed into the divorce meat-grinder and even if they avoid that, they are treated with contempt in their own homes.

I enjoy watching people suffer if they have earned that result, I enjoy this too much sometimes.

Same here, if they deserve it. I get rather angry when they clearly don’t. Still some shreds of the White Knight I imagine. When I was young someone once accused me of suffering from Sir Galahad Syndrome, and they were right.

I don’t doubt game works but once one really accepts the red pill, well I wonder if I can even love a woman anymore. Certainly you can’t trust them. Some part of me still has hope, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. But looking at your wife crying and wondering if going to comfort her is the wrong thing to do – thats pretty destructive right there.

That too is what gets me. You start thinking cold about women, and for those of us who don’t have wives, you can’t help but wonder what the point of it is. If I can’t trust her not to financially cash in, if I can’t trust her not to screw her boss, if I can’t reveal any weakness to her without worrying that it will disgust her, then she’s an enemy. An enemy of mine would try to screw me over like that, so why on earth would I willingly give her the power over me that modern laws do?

I like to believe that society used to create women that were different, and I don’t honestly know if I am lying to myself or not.

Well I don’t have a wife anymore. Once I realize she didn’t love me the way I loved her – in fact couldn’t – well I just left. So at least one marriage was destroyed by lying to boys. I couldn’t bring children into that relationship though. I grew up with a messed up home life and I won’t pass it on to my children. that probably means I won’t have any.

My reason for asking is that both of you are exhibiting the classic signs of what is called ‘existential crisis’ in therapeutic psychology. This is why it is so dangerous to listen to advice you read on the internet. You get the ideas without the introspection, and unguided by real, trained people, you have nothing to anchor to (or anchor to entirely self-destructive firmaments).

What is clear is that you are missing meaning, purpose. Viktor Frankl discusses the third school of psychology (Freudian and Nietzschean being the other two) in “Man’s Search for Meaning”.

I urge both of you to read the book. There is nothing wrong with being a ‘beta’ or an ‘omega’ or whatever Greek letter is currently in vogue. You guys just need to find something to fill your existential void, and ‘game’ isn’t the answer.

I would like a wife I can trust, children and a family life that is peaceful where my children can grow up healthy. I have a quite mentally demanding job but if I have to be ‘on’ 24 7 I could probably pay the price with an early grave if that is what it took. I don’t know if I could do it all without at least a fair legal outcome if it goes wrong. I’m pretty sure it would mentally unhinge me and you just might read about it in the newspaper.

My problem – which the gamers always seem to ignore is that no one can go through life without being smacked in the teeth. If I have to be gaming for the next 30+ years I know I will go through periods where I am not all that. A car accident hurt my relationship with my wife because I was weak. Gaping wounds did that to even Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan. What to do when that happens? Or I lose my job for year because of a shitty economy. I am not capable of being alpha all the time and when I try I run myself into the ground and the end result is worse from a game perspective.

I am however plenty introspective and I have no doubt I am in a existential crisis. I would rather eat broken glass than go to a psychologist. In my opinion the profession is a crock – all conditions are voted on to decide if they are real and don’t we just love female professions dominated by politics and consensus. In some places 30% of boys are on drugs – all have been approved by psychologists. I’m not paying these people money.

Without family (children) life has little meaning but a man can’t have a family in these countries. If I were a robot in an asimov book my brain would explode. As it is I muddle through and do OK.

This is why it is so dangerous to listen to advice you read on the internet.

It’s not just the Internet. It’s observed reality. You go through life in bewilderment, because what you have been told is so at odds with what you are seeing. Then you read something, and it’s like a light being turned on in a dark room. As I said earlier, you already halfway suspected a large part of it.

You get the ideas without the introspection, and unguided by real, trained people, you have nothing to anchor to (or anchor to entirely self-destructive firmaments).

What anchor?
Your culture is on a self-destructive path to oblivion, you’re never going to have a family in any real sense. The most you can hope for is a cheap facsimile of one while living on the razors edge. Most of what you have been told is a lie.

Where do you see ground to throw an anchor besides yourself?

You guys just need to find something to fill your existential void, and ‘game’ isn’t the answer.

This:
Nothing is quite as effective at jump starting a feeling of existential dread than coming to understand that in your youth your own father, mother, and religious leaders all fed you lots of a type of poison designed to throw sand in the gears of your quest as an adult for love and meaningful human connections.

The one flaw in the female armour is this: that women do want marriage but men are the only buyers thereof. Presently men are being asked to pay Rolls-Royce prices for Robin Reliant quality. Men are thus perfectly entitled to say that 1. the product is too expensive and 2., they don’t much care for it anyway. They can walk away from it, and as we see from the latest white single marriage stats that is exactly what is happening. If women want marriage, then amongst the things they are going to have to include in their resume are:

1 STD free
2 Abortion (and Infanticide) free
3 Baggage free (i.e. no ex’es or children) or propensity to stalking
4 No history fuck-buddies, Booty Calls, or Friends with Benefits
5 An ability to cook,
6 A willingness to sew, darn iron and clean
7 Debt (including student loan) free
8 A family history unlikely to include multiple divorces (bastardy is not acceptable)
9 A mother who stayed married
10. Reasonable size, acceptable looks and young (and fertile).

These are just some of the items on my check-list for a prospective bride: These are what any man even of my father’s generation would have taken for granted. Few women today (amongst the white educated middle-class) can manage any but a few of these. Of course if women would prefer Fuck-buddy status, then I can accomodate that as well, but they must provide their own cat.

Excellent post. I do not believe that the Manosphere will make any progress as a conventional political movement, but the widespread knowledge of Manosphere ideas will undermine the feminist stranglehold of academia and the MSM. Feminists in those positions will become as irrelevant and disrespected as Marxists are today.

“… the lie my peers and I were brought up with that women naturally commit for life is forever exploded.”

Yup, I remember hearing this lie too, and believing it.

It was already a lie when I heard it; but 60 years ago, when people married early, divorce was rare, and men were the gatekeepers to commitment, it appeared to be true. What we didn’t know is that it was a truth that had been socially constructed.

We have got used to hearing that phrase when feminists want to destroy something that they don’t like. Now their own weapons can be turned against them to point out the fallacy of their ideas. “The personal is the political” – bring it on.

What a great way to put it. The knight, is a status alpha (noble, landed) and natural alpha (warrior, strong, gruff, few words). He of course is the kind of guy the women can notice and are interested in, and chivalry in this sense could be viewed by women as his beta creed, that will guarantee that for all his rough, tingle-inducing edges, he will provide, be loyal, etc. In other words, he is a self-tamed alpha, which is apparently what 50 Shades and female romance-porn is telling us women want.

When it comes to the serf, no status, natural betaness, chivalry is entirely lost on him from the female point of view, because, well, who cares, certainly not the women, even his societal equals. The figure of Don Juan just goes to demonstrate this, and Bill Clinton is a more modern example a figure of the high status male boffing hundreds or more women, most of which are servile and know he’s out of their league, and thousands more wishing for a chance at them. The only time the lowly guy’s commitment matters, his adherence to a code of chivalry, matters is when is is somehow able to climb up out of the serf’s muck and attain some vestige of knighthood, see d”Artagnan from the Three Musketeers for example.

Almost enough to make you wonder if the old rite of Prima Notte was merely an earlier example of the female imperative (alpha sperm, beta wallet) hooking up with alpha priorities (notch count).

Dalrock have you watched any of girlwriteswhat’s video essays? She’s an antifeminist who really seems to be behind MRA, as far as I can tell. I am wondering if I am missing anything, but so far she seems right on the money. For example, she has a great account of how the Norwegian family-law system, as corrupted by feminism as any legal system on Earth, is pretty much responsible for allowing Anders Breivik to grow up entirely unmonitored by the police or social workers — while it was ragingly obvious from his infancy that his mother was deeply disturbed and psychologically destructive. Breivik’s parents were divorced when he was a child, but institutionalized feminism dictated that the mother would automatically get custody even if there were manifest danger signs about her mental health.

girlwriteswhat’s conclusion is simply that feminism has all that Norwegian blood directly on its hands.

Just look for girlwriteswhat on youtube and watch a few of the vids, I’m curious as to your opinion, I’m trying to spread the word on this very interesting woman.

“Many people who complain of a King are inherently glad and grateful to be ruled. They may never admit it, or realize it, but they are, and it manifests.”

I would submit that the recent U.S. election demonstrates that many people are quite open about their desire to be ruled, to be relieved of the burden of life’s pesky little responsibilities in return for the promise of bread and circuses. Hmmm, how did that voting go down along gender lines, and what’s that about women not being naturally submissive again?

“Thus you had literal white knights running around getting down on their knees, singing songs, and doing disturbing painful things to get into the pants of an often already married woman. ”

Actually, at some point it was much worse than this, although I can’t remember exactly when (high middle ages I think), because the ultimate form of courtly love was urequited love, i.e. Sir Knight in Shining White Armour does all of these deeds of glory and honour for the lady (often married as you say, usually to his liege lord, think Sir Lancelot and Guinevere), but his love and respect is so pure she doesn’t actually have to do anything icky with him in the boudoir.

As a side-note, there are two main forms of medieval bardic song, action songs (literally, the French term is chanson de geste) and chick songs of courtly love (amour courtois). Action songs being songs like, I went over there, beat the living crap out of every guy there, and had their women before their husbands’ bodies hit the floor. Amour courtois being the song about how the knight in shiny, shiny armour (did we say it was shiny?) rode up on his horsey (yay! ponies!), and even though he was so strong, and even once said a naughty word in the heat of battle, did all of these brave and honourable things for me (and only me! I’m literally a special princess snowflake!), and I know he loves me so much, because after doing all of these things I didn’t even have to kiss him (and I mean come on, have you ever smelled a knight who just killed a dragon for you? Sweat, guts, sulphur, ewwww!)

On a side note, often when the lord of a demesne was off fighting, etc., his wife was in charge of certain household aspects. In the absence of TV, wandering bards, etc., often provided dinner-time entertainment, and had to sing for their supper. Obviously, if you were any good at it, you sang what your paying audience (i.e. the lord, or in his absence the lady) wanted to hear. This likely lead to these two types of song being developed. A good example of this in action can be found if you are familiar with Eleanor of Aquitaine, whom IIRC might have been rumoured to have penned a few such songs. Just a medieval means of pushing the female imperative.

ybmNo PUA or game fraud has even produced, or allowed a scientific study to test the claims of Game, PUA, RSD, Dark Triad Game (As practiced in the so-called Roissysphere) or any other attraction system. Anecdote, that’s all “game” can claim.

Of course, if that happened, a bully like ybm would just dismiss it out of hand. Naturals do not like the rest of us discussing game for the same reason carousel-riding women don’t like it.

Too bad for them. The facts are plain to see, for those who look with open eyes (and a good pair of glasses…).

Oh where are a maiden’s simple joys?
Shan’t I have a normal life a maiden should?
Shall I never be rescued in the wood?
Shall two knights never tilt for me
And let their blood be spilt for me?
Oh where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
Shall I not be on a pedestal?
Worshipped and competed for?
Not be carried of, or better still,
Cause a little war?

Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
Are those sweet,gentle pleasures gone for good?
Shall a feud not begin for me?
Shall kith not kill their kin for me?
Oh, where are the trivial joys,
Harmless, convivial joys
Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?

Anecdotes have some value, perhaps not as much as a scientific study, but some nonetheless. There are men posting and commenting from all over the nation and world, making the same observations about similar circumstances. These same observations are coming from men from every conceivable demographic. The stories seem to be the same regardless of race, religious background, age, socioeconomic status, education level, profession, residence.

The same general stories, over and over again, from men who live hundreds or thousands of miles from each other, have never spoken to each other, never met face to face, don’t even know each others’ real names. Just pixels talking to each other on blogs.

Everyone knows a study on “Game” would never see the light of day, because its conclusions are too politically incorrect. Authoring or funding a study that supports game would be professional, economic and social suicide.

OpusOf course if women would prefer Fuck-buddy status, then I can accomodate that as well, but they must provide their own cat.

Opus, I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you! We can’t expect fuckbuddies to have to go to all the trouble and expense of providing their own moggie. No, no, sir, there must be a National Cat Trust established, part of a larger National Cat Service, to take care of this substantial, and daily growing, need. Set up a commission to study the problem, of course, and then import cats from abroad if need be.

On the question of a scientific study proving game, one thing which stands out is the lack of a competing hypothesis. Aside from absurd conventional wisdom (make her want you by rubbing her feet and giving her flowers), what exactly are the opponents of game presenting as the alternate model? Saying “no, no, you’ve got it all wrong” gets old after a few years if you don’t have an alternate model to propose. I’m not saying I won’t entertain such a model if one is eventually proposed (provided I’m still alive and functioning mentally), but in the meantime I find the protests extremely tedious.

FreeNortherner suggested this about the church in a post a while back. His suggestion was something like this, and I paraphrase: “If we’re wrong about women, and game isn’t the solution, then give us something better.”

as I think about it some more, the closest I’ve seen anyone come to offering an alternative model is Cane Caldo’s attempted deconstruction and explanation of Game, and how Game either does not exist or does not work, or should not be used. The idea is that a man should not be “nice”, he must be “good”, with “good” having that meaning ascribed to it in the Judeo-Christian ethic. He must be steadfast, stoic, reverent, kind, dignified, industrious, and generous. He justifies his woman and continually sanctifies her, and this makes him male marriage material. This kind of man is attractive to the right kind of woman, if I understand Cane’s argument.

The problem is that women are consistently demonstrating that while these traits are desirable, even admirable, in a man; they are not attractive. Even Christian women are demonstrating this (Exhibit A: Lisa Whelchel. Exhibit B: Amy Grant. Exhibit C: Paula White. Exhibit D: Charles Stanley and his ex-wife.) And women have sent a clear message that unless there is attraction, meaning physical, sexual attraction, they don’t want sex or marriage.

So game is the only thing I have found that offers a comprehensive explanation of the mechanics of female attraction.

What exactly is to be modeled? I do not understand the point, that there must be a competing hypothesis, hypothesis for what?
If I say that a certain medication doesn’t cure a certain illness it makes no sense to say, in retort, show me a competing hypothesis. There is an assumption built into what ou are saying, as far as I can tell, but am open to correction.

If there is a cure for the illness that is obviously working for some people, then something must work. If it is not the medication that is currently being tried, it must be something else. What is it?

The solution could be (I am not arguing this, just making a point) that there is no solution. That its chaos, born or entropy even, by definition then you move into fractals and wear yourself out trying to model chaos or solve it.

If there is a cure for the illness that is obviously working for some people, then something must work. If it is not the medication that is currently being tried, it must be something else. What is it?
——————————————
OK, so part of that process is FIRST to determine if it is the med that is curing some of the people. That is the rational procedural step that comes before throwing the question “what else could it be?” You wouldn’t prove it,, scientifically, by saying the burden is offer what other thing could be doing it, the scope of that question is scientifically ridiculous at that juncture.

Interestingly, while I do firmly believe that my time in the seduction community was a crucial part of finally growing the hell up and becoming a man, I believe that most of the tactics and techniques taught as game, versus the principles of attraction etc, are like training wheels. They are better than standing in the corner trying to get drunk enough to go talk to a woman, but they aren’t the things you would say and do if you had a strong internally validated self-worth.

Sadly, my experience is that most men never grasp this truth and once learning pickup techniques become weird pickup dudes instead of cool guys who know how to interact well with women.

@deti, Sharrukin, and others
Your experience is actually pretty awful. I don’t know how I dodged that bullet. I figure it was because I was so incredibly shy and insecure that the indoctrination passed me over while I was head down hunched over the keyboard coding.

@ybm
Is it an existential crisis or one of identity, and is there a difference? I had a good friend who pointed me down that path, and post divorce, I spent the better part of eighteen months considering who I am at a conscious level as opposed to the who I was via osmosis from society and family and friends.

Regarding game and the seduction community. I count my time spent there as an important piece in helping me to finally grow the hell up and become a man.

However, I really feel like pickup/game has only three real benefits. It gives you permission to stop being a white knight. It gives you an arena in which you can do battle with yourself and your internal demons. The techniques and tactics and routines are like training wheels in that they get you taking action that is better than standing in the corner trying to muster up the courage to talk to a woman, but that are different from what you would do if you were a cool confident man with no fear.

Sadly, I’ve seen far too many guys never realize the training wheels nature of what they learned and while they have some success, they are also to varying degrees kind of weird.

I think that they want women to be attracted, have sex and be a good wife to man for these different models:

1) Be Awesome – Simply display the right mix of manning up when necessary, comforting when proper, make enough money to be in the upper middle class, display honor and be a good guy. Volunteer and get involved in the community and church. Basically be what the ideal man in the modern day church’s vision. Basically a manicorn, the same thing that all the HUSsies want. If this person actually exists, it’s usually just on the surface, since he has some deep ambitious alpha traits that allow him to project this image.

2) Just Because – Women should be faithful and love men just because. It’s the right thing to do. Screw biology and attraction triggers. I’m the guy and she should just love me, what’s so hard about that?

All these people know that what modern day Game teaches is correct. Women want social domaniant behavior (which Game tries to first teach a person, have them fake it, have them make it and then become it), also looks are important just not paramount, money is important, style is important. These are the main things that make men attractive while honor,loyalty, being a good hearted guy are what women desire in those attractive men.

The reason they can’t accept it is because it invalidates their own beliefs and they would have to face harsh realities. Is my wife like that? What if she leaves me? Nope, I don’t need to use attraction behavior, she will just love me because I’m me. The manster won’t let them believe in Game.

Also, you have the hopeless. The physical unattractive that no amount of Game will help. Their whole premise is shouting that Game doesn’t work. No Game doesn’t work when you are 50 pounds overweight or homeless. It’s not a magic solution. The reason that it’s touted so much is that for most SWPL guys it’s the missing piece. They already workout and keep in shape, have a job, and have intelligence, they simply were taught horribly wrong about dealing with women.

I don’t see why attraction systems cannot be tested nor why anything more than the null hypothesis would be needed to test it. Isn’t game really about exhibiting cues of genetic fitness, which for males is social and physical dominance? So why not design a study in which you have females interact with a male for a certain amount of time and then have the females rate him on sexual attractiveness? You could use the same guy even, but with some subjects he uses game (dominance) and in others he doesn’t, or maybe even behaves in a submissive, mangina-ish way. Seems easy enough to do.

I think it won’t be done, however, because it is embarrassing to women to admit what they really want – dominant men, not “equal” partners. Plus, who would have the nerve to take on the feminist academic establishment?

@empathologism — “If I say that a certain medication doesn’t cure a certain illness it makes no sense to say, in retort, show me a competing hypothesis.”
—
But that’s not what’s being said. What’s being said is that a certain medication (game) does cure a certain illness (ability to attract and maintain relationships with women). Anti-gamers are retorting that it either doesn’t work or shouldn’t be used. Non-anti-gamers respond with, “Okay, show me something else that works, then.”

As I’ve said before, I’m thinking game is necessary but not sufficient for maintaining a marriage. It certainly seems to be working as far as increasing my wife’s attraction towards me. It’s not doing much for my attraction to her, though. However, because I’ve only been working at this for a few months, it may be that this will work itself out. Or it may be that something else is needed to balance out my current approach.

Regardless, my experience and observations tell me that game significantly increases odds of success for attracting women (or a woman). Telling me that it doesn’t is nonsense. Telling me that something else works better will get my attention, though only if it can be observed to work better (or at least as good) as game.

I have been doing that quite a lot the past few months. Instead of walking on eggshells like my churchian “lovingness” suggested was more Christlike, I have adopted a policy of speaking the truth directly at all times. I have overdone the “negs” and I’m not sure how to gauge how far I tilt towards being more assertive/masculine versus just being an asshole.

Anyways… my wife has finally said something to the effect that I don’t know everything. She’s maybe hinting that I should be more “humble” or at least faux-humble. I think that talking about red-pill type stuff is fun– and it is relevant to how we raise the kids the next few years.

Maybe Deti has internalized that his wife cannot be his moral and intellectual equal, but I still hope to educate mine. Maybe my blowhard explaining just revs up the hamster and I’d be better served with some alternate tactics specifically geared toward creating attraction.

The shit tests are so frequent, I tend to just give her a fight when she wants one and explain head on what she’s doing and why she’s wrongheaded. Maybe I don’t have the option to be like Deti, yet.

what exactly are the opponents of game presenting as the alternate model? Saying “no, no, you’ve got it all wrong” gets old after a few years if you don’t have an alternate model to propose.

Indeed.

I repeat again that :

1) A large number of men who are over 30, serious, and have no reason to praise Game if it did not help them, are in fact saying that Game has benefited them a lot. Myself included. This group of men has not spend substantial money on seminars, etc., nor do they own funny hats or feather boas. The entire stereotype of the anti-Game zealot is busted.
2) Extremely crucial to the anti-gamer narrative is the clumsy attempt to insist that Game has no value in LTRs. As soon as you point out that LTR Game and PUA Game have about 80% overlap, they shut down and change the subject.
3) There is the occasional fool who attempts to define bad Game as ‘Game’ and competent Game as ‘anti-Game’ so that they can claim they invented an alternative to Game, when in fact, the ‘alternative’ is just, well, basic Game anyway.

The anti-Gamers are intellectually empty. This is because 80% of men and 99% of women are not self-actualized enough to comprehend that the traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable and can become second-nature with practice.

Anti-gamers are retorting that it either doesn’t work or shouldn’t be used. Non-anti-gamers respond with, “Okay, show me something else that works, then.”
——————————————————————
This is exactly what I rebutting. The analytical inquiry would not be “show me something else that works”.

If an anti-gamer says game does not work…..it makes no sense to retort, “ok show me something that works”

You make my point for me there.

I keep having to disclaim, I am not an anti-gamer, game denier, whatever….I just have issues with the frame of the discussion, especially among such an intelligent group of people.

If an anti-gamer says game does not work…..it makes no sense to retort, “ok show me something that works”
—
No, the retort is “Show me something ELSE that works.” The request is coming from someone who has observed that game works. Claiming that it doesn’t work, on its face, is nonsense. A more charitable interpretation of that claim is that game doesn’t work as well as something else does. So what’s the something else?

Game works better than nothing. It also works better than feministing. Saying that it doesn’t directly contradicts the observed data.

This suggestion was made about a year ago, and the reaction is the same every time it is brought up: “you can’t design a test” “it’ll never happen it’s too politically incorrect/THEY would never allow it” “what is your alternative”.

The core of the game fraud is that you can create attraction (immediately weasels will deny this but anyone being intellectually honest will admit it). Present evidence, not anecdote, or continue to be called out as frauds and liars manipulating young men and making them into anxious wrecks second guessing themselves at every turn.

But it does work. A huge number of men, who have no reason to lie, start practicing the techniques and see strong results immediately. Again, these are serious men over 30, who never went to a seminar, bought a feather boa or funny hat, or have any reason to lie.

Those who claim it does not work, frankly, are those who either don’t have the courage to do approaches (and thus blame the material rather than their own limitations), or had such a hugely unrealistic expectation of instant results, that they deliberately set conditions that were impossible, only so that they could claim failure later.

I would like to share my thoughts in my interactions when seducing women. I grew up religious, and did not have sex with girls for the longest time due to moral concerns. Eventually, I gave all that up in my mid-20s, and I do talk honestly with girls I am ‘hooking up’ with about these issues, and they seem to love it!

For example, I’ll tell a girl I am sleeping with how I had reservations about having sex with girls for the longest time for religious reasons (after I have fu**ed her good). I will also express my concerns about us having sex, saying: ‘Don’t you think us having sex will impact your chance of marriage monogamy? It’s only natural you will compare and contrast all the men you’ve been with, and some will be better looking than others, some will be funnier than others, some will be stronger than others, richer etc. Your husband won’t necessarily be the best in all of these fields which would make it harder to have lifetime monogamy with him.’

The girls absolutely love these types of conversations. I will then proceed to read Blaise Pascal after sex and share some quotes I like out loud, and that just makes the girls more attracted to me. Religion is a very cool subject to these girls, so long as you don’t express an anti-sex attitude or judge the girl on her sexual baggage (this I obviously do, but just keep it to myself).

The only taboo that I do not mention as girls cannot handle it, is about their chances of marriageability and the type of husband they’ll attract. They seem to think marriage is like death, there for the taking, but it could also be attributable to that a lot of these girls I am hooking up with are in their early 20’s.

So, my observations in the SMP make me conclude that women really like men with a strong sense of self-identity, which I have due to the strong religious upbringing I have, and really admire men like that. So the hierarchy would be something like this:

-Religious, attractive man with game
– Attractive Man with game
-Attractive man with no game
etc.

Game is by definition intellectually empty. No science, no evidence, no rigor. A vapid anti-culture anti-intellectual ” red pill alternative” that will leave you isolated from family and friends and constantly second guessing your every interaction.

The majority of people don’t “get” game because it’s bullshit, the same bullshit being sold to young men since tinctures and love potions in the 1300s.

when I said that I would not explain things to women, I was talking about my comments here and elsewhere. I genuinely want to help people and I want to pass on what I know to men and women alike. I’ve pretty much stopped giving those helpful comments to women. My experience is that most of the time, when a woman come to a blog in the sphere looking for relationship advice, she doesn’t really want red pill knowledge. What she wants is affirmation and validation. She wants me and others to bless what she has already decided to do. Usually, one of the following happens:

1. She has already made up her mind and no amount of talking from any man will change her mind.

2. She knows nothing about the red pill but just can’t seem to get it. Lengthy, months-long dialogues ensue with everyone going over the basics, tempers flared and little resolved.

3. She knows nothing about the red pill and is shocked/offended/horrified at what is said, and runs away screaming about “bitter” “angry” “losers” “can’t get laid” “need to get some love in your lives” “scary little men” “What would Jesus do”.

4. She knows nothing about the red pill, she hears about it and gets it, but she cannot or will not admit that it applies to her or her situation.

5. She knows all about the red pill, but she is a snowflake and the rules don’t apply to her.

6. She knows all about the red pill and it’s too bad men have to learn about it, but it’s not really her problem.

7. She knows what she’s doing is sorta kinda wrong because bad things happened the last time she did it but she really really really wants to do it and gee, don’tcha think it will work this time? C’mon, guys, work with me here!

“The core of the game fraud is that you can create attraction (immediately weasels will deny this but anyone being intellectually honest will admit it).”

It can create attraction and here’s why, because the whole purpose of Game is to convince her that you’re a high status man or at least higher than her and conveying that to her primal monkey brain.

The problem you are having is that it still is only a piece of the puzzle, and that other factors will shut down attraction despite the world’s greatest game being spit. Women are fickle as all hell. When they are hot and allowed to have agency they want it all. So you’re fat, you’re screwed. You’re poor, you’re tossed out. You have no style, you’re screwed. Likewise, you act dopey with no ‘coolness, Game, whatever you want to call it’ you’re screwed. The reason that you see Game loved so much, is that for the most part a lot of the guys had the other stuff in variable degrees, they just had no clue and in fact the wrong advice about how to act toward women.

REPEAT AFTER ME, Game in terms of talking to women is only a piece of the puzzle. The people at the black pill don’t have a shot because they are aspie and fat. It’s like a 5’6 120 pound ectomorph complaining that going to the gym and lifting weights didn’t make him bulging with muscles, there is only so much that training can do.

Can game “create” attraction? I don’t think any game proponents say that it creates something from nothing. A fat dude with no game isn’t going to pick up women in bars using card tricks, wearing fuzzy hats and nail polish, or telling chicks to buy him drinks. No one says otherwise.

But game and the above can raise a man’s profile and bring him into more women’s field of vision, increasing the odds that he will find a woman who is attracted to him. Game and the above can educate him and keep him from marrying a slut or someone in the throes of baby rabies. Game can improve an incel’s life to give him more to live for than TV, the internet and Halo 4. Game can improve his work life such that he is not being walked on or used. Game can prevent him from doing things that reduce or destroy his appeal to women who would otherwise find him attractive.

Another thing game can do for young men is get them to keep going in the face of certain and repeated rejection, armed with the knowledge that it’s a numbers game and if they approach enough they are bound to find one or two or three receptive, interested women for every 10 rejections.

But from my brief review they seem weighed down by a biased feminist narrative, they don’t put all the data into useful context, and they completely lack broader social interpretations like “beta male providers”, the “cock carousel”, and the “rationalization hamster”. So it’s difficult to use those studies to justify concepts that have any meaning to the Game/seduction community. LOL … Roosh/Roissy would have to get a research grant and do a collaborative study with some professor. I agree with your statement that in feminist academia taking on such topics could be a quick recipe for job loss.

Eventually you will see that 80% of men and 99% of women just cannot ever, ever grasp Game, no matter how simply you break it down for them, or how much time you spend on it.

Funny how a number of serious men over age 30 (on this thread alone are Dalrock, deti, Badger, myself, etc.) are allegedly unable to see that ‘Game is a fraud’ and ignorantly conclude that Game works from what we have seen in our lives, and from results we can generate at will, even in LTRs.

The solution could be (I am not arguing this, just making a point) that there is no solution. That its chaos, born or entropy even, by definition then you move into fractals and wear yourself out trying to model chaos or solve it.

Yes, but I’m not aware of anyone making that argument. This is the point. You constantly complain about game zealots, but I don’t see that many of them. I see men acknowledging that a counterintuitive approach yields real results and thereafter accepting something they wouldn’t otherwise be inclined to believe. The core concepts of game in fact are verified by science. I linked a while back to an article about a study which found that women are more attracted to bad boys during ovulation, and that they were prone to rationalize this as the man making an excellent father. But I can’t disprove a theory unless one is proposed. You proposed hypothetically that it is random, and I just proved it wrong with one study. If this were really the argument against game I would have just resolved a years long argument on the internet. But don’t hold a parade in my honor just yet, because those carping against game haven’t (and I strongly suspect won’t ever) proposed an alternate explanation of attraction. I will however continue standing by with my utmost patience.

1) We’re still arguing about a definition of “Game” and most of the anti-crowd uses a stupid strawman argument. It’s still sad.

2) If we step back from the concept of “Game” and move it to “Methods of Attraction within a Social Setting”, then the only way to say that there doesn’t exist some general, naturally accepted “more attractive” person is to deny all social science, anthropology and psychology that have accumulated over the past 500 years.

If you accept there are “beautiful” women and “ugly” women, then you accept there is a method by which attraction is differential for men. (And there is cultural settings that effect the topic) If you accept that women are attracted to the ripped pro athelete over the fat guy living in his mother’s basement, then you accept there is a method by which attraction is differential for women.

Everyone, minus idiots, accepts there exists differentials. The question is “what is the method/process/state of being that causes the differentials” and is there a full answer? If someone wants to argue that Roissy/Roosh/Athol Kay/Dalrock are wrong, they’re more than free to. I find a lot of it crass, but that doesn’t change its likelihood of being correct. But that is an argument against what is suggested, not the “state” of something like “Game” existing.

If I had the time & energy, I could hammer in the situation with a full deconstruction. There’s a wonderful analogy to the physics conception of “Mass” and the fact that we, still, barely understand it. Yet thousands of people will die today due to the properties of it. The existence of “Attraction Factors” simply isn’t up for argument.

So many men seem to think that Game will transform any man into the brass-balled alpha that gets all the hot women. This is, of course, nonsence.

Game, properly internalised Game, the sort that embeds itself into all aspects of your life (not just the pursuit of pussy) will simply allow you to become the man you were born to be. And the man you were born to be will exist on a spectrum from super-softy to brass-balled alpha. Game will simply allow you to take your rightful place on that spectrum.

And the man that you were born to be is all the man you will ever need to be to get most everything you want from women, other men, and life in general. Because learning Game will not only change your approach to achieving your goals, it will change the goals themselves.

ybm’s comment here https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/a-secret-the-kgb-couldnt-have-kept/#comment-63392 is the same type of thing black “leaders” or preacher tell their congregations to keep them on the plantation. Many lives lost keeping it real. And living up to that real nigga’s bullshit and the victim culture. I have had a black man as my friend with all sincerity tell me what I was not going to be able to do for being black. ybm that is dangerous either on purpose or out of ignorance.

“Roissy may be an unbeliever – though I actually think he’s just a repressed moralist; have you noticed how political “he” has gotten of late? – but R/CH has helped save many men from terrible fates at the hands of the harpies.”

“Roissy” does seem to think the traditional/Christian system is better, even if he admits that he prefers to follow his appetite.

The traditional /christian system is better because it gives someone a place to go. The MRM has to have a christian branch. There has to be a place of peace and stability as an alteranive to feminism. Churchianity is more feminism the glorifies rebellion and only creates spiritual ruin. All MRA’s need to learn and understand game especially the chistian ones. A churchian that learned and undrstood game could not help but become a christian man ready to give an alternative to the carousel. The carousel is not sustainable christianity is. The carousel can only exist in a stable world.

1 – Game didn’t get Keoni Galt married to the virgin, he discovered Game terminology after his marriage failed to satisfy him.

2 – One STDV wrote:
OneSTDV
I don’t know if I would characterize this as “Game”. I’d just say he got some balls.
I see Game as a conscious effort and the stuff Dave describes is really just a personality change. He isn’t using pick-up games, he’s just telling her the damn truth and not acquiescing to her bullshit.
When a beautiful woman flirts with him, he tells the damn truth. That’s not Game, it’s having balls. When she bitches and moans about some trivial mistake he made, he tells her to stop bitching and moaning about the trivial mistake he made.
What he’s doing isn’t some process that takes years to master. I think that constantly trying to be an alpha male would be quite exhausting for a beta. But to act like Dave does, to stand up for yourself and not be a little bitch, that’s rather easy. It’s about asserting yourself and not taking her shit.

Later, Keoni wrote that he believes in “game,” but it’s not PUA “game” as invented by Roosh/Roissy/Mystery/Neil Strauss:
Dave from Hawaii
Heh…after seeing all of those posts compiled into one long one, I now realize I have been spending a little too much time here.
….
Our’s is a society that has been socially engineered by people who have a vested interest in destroying harmonious relationships between the genders. It is a deliberate and subversive assault on the very foundation of civilization – the nuclear family.
Having taken the red pill, I believe I now see the “BIG” picture quite clearly. Which is why I no longer regret marrying a pretty young thing when I was young, dumb and ignorant. I’m just glad I learned the truth before it was too late.
…
If you’ve had sex with a man, if you’ve had relationships with a man, you have been a part of the social dynamics that PUA refer to as “GAME.” Because if the guy had none, you wouldn’t have been attracted enough to take your clothes off and spread your legs for him.
“Game” is just a nomer for the traditional gender role based on masculine nature.
… But in the end, if you have a relationship with a person of the opposite gender, pushing the other person’s attraction buttons IS A GAME. …
But if you are human, and you have had sexual relations with another human being, you have partaken in this thing called “GAME.”

Comment:
So Dave/Keoni is not endorsing PUA culture. He is endorsing marriage – if possible, marriage of young people to other young people. He’s endorsing a very patriarchal approach to marriage, and PUA promiscuity threatens patriarchy. He is definitely not saying, “Buy Roosh’s books, because Roosh has discovered something worth paying money for.” He is saying, “Everybody who has had sex has had knowledge of the social dynamics of attraction.”
Later, Alpha Mission kindly gave this quote from Keoni:
Keoni Galt wrote:
“The Manosphere is the bastard child of another blog that no longer exists.
That place was called “Roissy in D.C.” The Manosphere arose from the comment threads of that place.
The Spearhead, In Mala Fide, and other blogs to numerous to mention have been inspired by both Roissy’s blogging…”
So Keoni credits that blog for inspiring other blogs. That’s a pretty weak endorsement – looking at Keoni’s current blog, he isn’t a Roosh/Roissy fanboy. His blog is not a PUA blog – if anything, he endorses traditionalism and patriarchy, both of which are hostile to PUAs.

Continuing responses to TFH:
3 – Roosh gets laid, but by accident. His game doesn’t contribute to whether he gets laid or not. It’s as if he says that he has a magic feather that makes dogs defecate when he points is and says a magic word with special willpower. Roosh goes out in the park, finds a dog, points the feather, says the word, and either the dog defecates or it doesn’t. When it does defecate, Roosh reports success and announces that his willpower rivals that of Solomon the King. When the dog does not defecate, Roosh shrugs, tries not to report failure, and makes an excuse that the stars were not aligned.
In fact, whether the dog defecates is determined by variables internal to the dog. The magic feather, the magic word, and Roosh’s level of motivation are all irrelevant. Because Roosh has jettisoned his former life and burned his bridges behind him, he is highly motivated to rationalize his life choices as beneficial.
4 – Roosh’s race doesn’t depend on whether Roosh sees himself as belonging to a race. Roosh’s race depends on his degree of genetic kinship to other humans. In particular, Quebecois nationalists can define Roosh’s race as being non-Quebecois, and that’s enough to make him the enemy.

5 Deti asked YBM:
“when you say “Game is a fraud”, are you talking about PUA/Mystery Method style game, which focuses on notch count and getting women into bed as quickly and efficiently as possible?”
I am not YBM, but I’ll give my answer:
I claim that Neil Strauss, Roissy, Roosh, Mystery, and their ilk are intellectually bankrupt charlatans who re-package old insights of psychology and pretend to have invented them. Their boot camps, books, and other products are not worth paying for and do not achieve any special effect.

TFH had written:
“If an anti-gamer says game does not work….
But it does work. A huge number of men, who have no reason to lie…”

Note that the men who brag the loudest, such as Roosh, are trying to sell their books of useless advice. And then, when outside observers notice that Roosh is not getting laid, outside observers conclude that not only does Roosh have a monetary reason to lie – Roosh has been lying to sell his books.
So Cautiously Pessimistic is entirely out of step with the facts when he writes:
>Game works better than nothing. … Saying that it doesn’t directly contradicts the observed data.

Wrong. PUA Game is exactly as good as no effort at all. It’s a placebo at best.

6:
Dalrock says:
December 5, 2012 at 10:30 am
On the question of a scientific study proving game, one thing which stands out is the lack of a competing hypothesis. Aside from absurd conventional wisdom (make her want you by rubbing her feet and giving her flowers), what exactly are the opponents of game presenting as the alternate model?
Game as practiced by PUAs has two claims, descriptive and prescriptive:
A- descriptive claim – We, the bro science elite, have learned how to have sex with lots of women by mind-tricks.
B- prescriptive claim- We, the PUAs, will bang sluts and enjoy the decline. Biomechanics is God and we are the priesthood!
For the descriptive model, there’s a field called sociobiology. It works perfectly well. Some universities call it “evolutionary psychology.” It’s a science, and you learn it by going to the university, reading the texts, talking to the professors. Some popular writers on this, such as Steve Sailer, refer to “HBD” when they write about this topic. Many good scholars on this topic are not trained in biology: note F. Roger Devlin and Fred Reed.
For the prescriptive claim, Keoni Galt prescribes patriarchal monogamy. You can ask others, such as Elusive Wapiti or Athol Kay or Ian Yronwood, what they prescribe.

It is relevant to note that
dhurka says:
December 5, 2012 at 3:12 am
I am however plenty introspective and I have no doubt I am in a existential crisis. I would rather eat broken glass than go to a psychologist. In my opinion the profession is a crock – all conditions are voted on to decide if they are real…

Dhurka, I despise the unscientific fraud of clinical psych just as much as Szasz did.
There is a world of difference between a dishonest shrink and E.O.Wilson. See also

TFH, there is another category of critics of Game you left out.
The “naturals” and the carousel riders/watchers. “Naturals” start out denying Game even as they practice it.If they are intelligent enough, they come to understand Game, and then often they attack it a different way. Think about it – if you were a naturally gifted piano player, wouldn’t you want to discourage anyone else from ever taking lessons on the piano, in order that you could continue to be The Best Around? So when we find someone who acts a bit like a bully, who continues to argue with various fallacies against Game, insisting “it is all a waste of your time”, it is possible this is what’s going on – a “natural” is seeking to keep his competition low. Pay attention when someone insists, in the face of convincing 1st person evidence that “game is “a fraud” or “all fake”. he could well be just trying to keep the competition low.

The carousel riders and watchers are living out their unfettered hypergamy in search of alpha sperm. They don’t want upper betas sneaking into their coochies by chicanery, and the watchers do not want to watch “fake” Alphas. These are the women who will insist “Oh, that Game stuff would never work on ME!” and then say “YOu can get girls. Just Be Yourself”. We all know how to evaluate this: pay attention to what they do, ignore what they say.

So, TFH, IMO there are women who do understand Game. They just don’t want ordinary men to learn it. There are men who do understand Game, and who want to suppress other men from using it. The feminine imperative is likely not amused by Game…

Game, properly internalised Game, the sort that embeds itself into all aspects of your life (not just the pursuit of pussy) will simply allow you to become the man you were born to be. And the man you were born to be will exist on a spectrum from super-softy to brass-balled alpha. Game will simply allow you to take your rightful place on that spectrum.

This is absolutely true, and I’ve never before seen it put so succinctly and efficiently.

Game taught me to be assertive, not just with women. Some aspects of the “game” as seen on the internet are things I have always done naturally. Some have become hexai after some diligent training, and some are abhorrent to me. I’m sure the latter stuff probably works, but I’m not interested in the particular women who gravitate to that stuff. In fact, I’ve called out women who responded too heavily in that direction with “I’m probably not enough of an asshole for you” and sometimes “I think you’re looking for someone a little more ‘high maintenance'”.

I’m “alpha” in some ways, and in some ways I’m “beta”, and I’m sure I’m more beta on some occasions than others. I don’t care too much, I’m just me.

Game improved my life, not just with women, but more profoundly with men. The way you carry yourself communicates to everyone. You can’t fool men forever, but it definitely gets your foot in the door and allows you to show your peers you have what it takes to get various jobs done, and this, in turn leads to more of everything good. I’ve had much more in the way of leadership opportunities since practicing it.

I’m hardly the grand master of game or some sort of roissy quality PUA, but I’m happier now than I was before I ran across the stuff. I think I’m fairly representative of a lot of men who learned some of the tricks and improved upon themselves.

Of course I respect the anti-gamers too. Every man should do what he feels is right, and I’m not one to preach to anybody else.

“So every event you go to, every party, every situation where you actively look to find single ladies in their forties you are met with a parade of EPL divorcees, former club gals, or personality disordered ladies. The smallest segment out there are the normal, grounded divorcees and widows who actually are now single due to divorce from an idiot or death. And these ladies get snapped up fast! It almost feels like you are driving around a full parking lot looking for a open space.”

If the national pastime of the Roissysphere wasn’t cyber-bullying people worse than Amanda Marcotte, neither would I.

Who does this? Certainly not pro-Game people.

If the Roissysphere wasn’t using their cyber-bullying to peddle books and profit at the expense of others,

Only Roosh sells things (books, which are cheap). Roissy does not, neither do the legions of pro-Game people on this thread or elsewhere. Plus, myself and others routinely say that it does NOT cost money to learn Game. No one needs to go to an expensive seminar.

If the Roissysphere wasn’t trying to tag along with the MRA making us look like fools who ‘just need to get laid’

About 95% of the time, it is the non-Game crowd who starts it. Gamers admirably don’t respond until the provocation is extreme.

At any rate, Game and Men’s Rights are highly complementary.

Another maxim of mine : Anyone who makes waaaaay off-base accusations, is merely engaging in projection. All of the above accusations in italics (which is a bona-fide meltdown) are way off-base.

Game taught me to be assertive, not just with women. Game improved my life, not just with women, but more profoundly with men. The way you carry yourself communicates to everyone.

Same here. Shouldn’t this make other people happy for the recipient, if these critics are ostensibly about Men’s Rights?

I have, in the past, estimated how moderate competence in Game is worth $2M in assets to the average man. I defined what moderate competence in Game is, elsewhere, as well as how I arrive at the figure (individual results will vary, but $2M seems to be a fair market value of the SMV and life benefits of moderate Game competence).

Game does work imo. I remember back in my late 20’s i was employing game style ‘moves’ on women that were at least 2-3 points above me on the scale, and i noticed i could get them interested in talking and engaging with me when they weren’t previously. The problem is that i didn’t know how to close with them(too nervous), and how to maintain frame control. If you drop your guard, the women lose interest, esp if they are more attractive, because it’s a sign that you really don’t know how to deal with them. My problem is that i’m short though, and that tends to hurt me in the dating world, but i haven’t done badly all things considering.

As for style, 2/3 of the most attractive girls i have ever been with were with me when i was looking pretty shabby actually(long hair, beard, slightly overweight etc). A lot of it has to do with culture too. I’ve noticed that in countries that are less feminist, there are more women that believe in romance, so they care less about looks etc. Not all women of course, but there is a greater percentage of women that are willing to marry a man with a SMV 2-3 points lower than theirs even if they don’t have money. I noticed heaps of examples like this when i was living in places like Greece. I’ve heard the same about S.America too. but these cultures tend to be more social, which involves a level of forced interaction. That’s why it’s easier to get to know prettier women in these countries.

In the Anglosphere, we are more isolated, so it’s much harder to get to know women if you aren’t their physical type.

The Manosphere started before Roissy blog ever existed. Old timers might remember the niceguy forum when it was hung like a bag off the old Jushua Dearing photography forum. It was where MGTOW was conceived.

Is TFH trying to change the subject because the facts are not on his side? I suspect he is.

In fact, I am not Alek Novy.

Since TFH doesn’t want to admit that I have refuted his earlier challenges, perhaps he will entertain us with his stories of how he, TFH, has successfully applied PUA game to seduce women of other races, thus infuriating racial nationalists and proving that he, TFH, is more enlightened and generally superior.

[The audience strains its ears but hears only crickets in the distance.]

You know what TFH, I’m very surprised. I agreed with 99% of the Misandry Bubble, and 5/6 of your maxims as “The Futurist” but I cannot say that I expected you to go down the sockpuppet route accusing anyone who disagrees with game as being a sockpuppet.

I’ve been accused of being Alek Novy, Blackpill, Rob Fedders, even PMAFT. But never did I expect that you’d go down that route too, I always expected someone that I agree with 99% of the time show an astounding ignorance like you just did.

I’m extremely disappointed actually. Considering I had defended you in the past.

“I am not a believer – I don’t believe in Game. It is not that I think it immoral, nor that I think it is undesirable, but the idea that some nerd can pull some hottie by a few suitably placed negs, or demonstrations of value, is largely implausible.”

I am a regular devourer of Heartiste at The Chateau (and occasionally comment there) but, again I wonder whether this is an entirely cultural thing: for I can assure you that some of the most successful pussy-artists on my side of the Pond seduce women with no other weapon than (insincere) sentimentality, flattery, declarations of love, flowers, false-attributions of wealth and fame and general white-knighting. Indeed my relative failure with the female sex is due to my absolute reluctance to indulge in such unmanly behaviour. My trouble is that I just cannot keep a straight face and boredom sets in when I am expected to praise a woman to the sky. I cringe when guys are metraphorically laying their cloak on the puddle in front of milady’s tiny feet; but their thinking is that a 20% success rate is worth the effort. Of course we have a long reputation for being cold and stand-offish so perhaps the English woman is so amazed by ‘Italian manners’ that she literally swoons – and then we exported all our Puritans to The American Colonies – so genetically we are merely left with some unhaaaapy women only too eager for romance. This is just an largely unverifiable theory – loved the Cat video – thnks Stingray.

OPUS: “Of course we have a long reputation for being cold and stand-offish so perhaps the English woman is so amazed by ‘Italian manners’ that she literally swoons”

Same thing happens with Australian women. They are easily seducted by the clumsy romantic ‘charm’ of foreigners that they would reject offhand from men in their domestic cohort.
This phenomenon has been written about extensively in the manosphere. You can not discount the appeal of novelty.

American women in particular are huge fans of novelty. I had no problems getting female attention in the U.S because of my accent. I’d say it raised my value by at least 1 or 2 points in the eyes of many attractive women. and the more i played up the accent–i.e the more effort i put into it–the more attention i got.

Getting laid in the U.S was dead easy for me. It’s not easy in Aus though.

I was lunching with a friend yesterday. He is short, somewhat overweight (which he denies) and ugly (which he readily admits). He is, however, a lothario. He attributes his success, to the fact that he can charm any woman with endless talk (in a largely high-pitched voice – a woman of my acquaintance once mistook him for a woman during a phone conversation). I deduce that women thus feel utterly safe with him, which is how he manages to entice them back to his appartment on the pretext of coffee and jokes. Little do they suspect… He is on record as saying that he believes he can seduce any (and thus every) woman in the world – all he needs is the time and the opportunity. Nothwithstanding his high view of his own abilities, he envies me. He says that if her were tall and good looking like me he would have even greater success than he does. He says that I can get away with saying things to women he can never say (I think he means negging). I once tried to imitate his ingratiating style and it proved disastrous – and the woman saw through the fraudulence instantly: I guess I am not a good actor. He thinks I would have great success were I to register at POF and OKcupid. I am not interested in doing so (the women look like dogs) – I expect to be chased.

We do however have this in common: we both have false rape allegations against us – which is an occupational hazrd of seducing single women.

Paula White is divorced from her ex husband Randy White. She had her own global traveling ministry (that I don’t think Randy participated in or oversaw) in addition to copastoring a megachurch in Tampa with Randy. She traveled around the world ministering. In addition, she is among the more physically attractive female “pastors” and “ministers”. It’s pretty clear, at least to me, she and Randy divorced at least in part because she and her ministry got bigger and more famous than Randy. She didn’t need him anymore.

@Deti,
I have been to that church (~9 years ago). Quite a trip. They were trying to raise money for something and they told the congregation that if they “cast your loaf on the water, God will return it as French Toast.”

I would like to know why it is that these high profile pastors and preachers and Christians are having all these marital problems, and they can’t do what it takes to stick it out and overcome them.

Shit, too many Christians look at them and say “well, if THEY can’t do it, why should WE even try? If divorce or marital strife is OK for Benny Hinn or Charles Stanley or Amy Grant or Todd Bentley or Randy and Paula White, must be OK for us. If they’re not going to hell and they continue to prosper, well, I will too.”

Of course, to ask the question is to answer it. They are not about God’s business or about keeping their marriages together. They are either

1. workaholics who are not paying attention to their long-suffering wives, or
2. female pastors refusing to submit, or
3. female Christian artists who get more famous than their husbands and lose their attraction because they now far outrank their husbands in sex rank, or
4. Pastor Anointed BigBucks gets famous and notorious, and falls in with attractive women who throw themselves at him.

I (and most others over here) are greatly amused by the figure of the Pastor of the American Mega-church, especially when they fall prey (as they all seem to) to some some sexual or financial pecadillo. I very much doubt that any Archbishop of Canterbury ever divorced, and I am certain that the same is true of all Cardinal Archbishop’s of Westminster. Women are (mercifully) not allowed into such exalted ranks. Your analysis reminds me so much of that excellent song a few years ago from The Human League, ‘Don’t you want me Baby’, where the female acknowledges that yes she was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar, and that five years later she has the world at her feet, but she says that would have happened ‘with or without him’. Yeah right. Briffaults Law seems to apply.

I wonder if status is a bigger factor in England because the English have a reputation for being obessed with class. Different factor come into play into different parts of the world and I believe it depends on scarity.

So in Australia, where the guys way of saying hello is punching it each other in the face. Gruff masculine behavior is all over the place so beta traits combined with looks/money would be more desired because it’s not readily available and the women that want masculine type of guys already have their pick.

In America, the women can’t find masculine acting men that are in the middle class or up. We all act like pseudo intellectual wussies. So a guy that has a good SES that acts like a traditional man isn’t abundant.

The being said, the novelty of a mangina probably wears off pretty quickly in Australia. Plus it’s not like Aussies have the reputation of feminine rose petal lovely hot women either.

Also, it seems like the English guys are better looking than the women there. I always see like the normal English guys having some type of decent strong looks but it seems like the British women have the exact same strong looks and just aren’t that appealing compared to other countries women plus they are have a huge problem with weight just like America. I think that America would actually have the world’s hottest women if they didn’t blow up like balloons because of the genetic diversity that took place from all the different european countries funneling in.

“Also, it seems like the English guys are better looking than the women there. I always see like the normal English guys having some type of decent strong looks but it seems like the British women have the exact same strong looks and just aren’t that appealing compared to other countries women plus they are have a huge problem with weight just like America.”

It is certainly true that class is so important in England. As a quick test flick over to Heartiste and look at the picture there now of the guy pushing the stroller and the slender curvy chick beside him. Heartiste sees that girl as desirable – all I see is KOMEN or Chav; that is to say underclass – I can almost hear the accent! De Tocqueville in the 1830s observed that America was through and through middle-class (wheras England is or was something like 90% working class 9.9% Middle Class and Aristo – a class you do not have – 0.1%). It is perhaps for this reason that despite dreadful women like the Pankhursts and The Harmans (yes there is more than one) most English women are not the entileld brats I hear about on-line – though I agree few seem to be particularily good-looking. My problem is, I am not attracted to the working class and the middle class are not interested in me – as for Aristos – never met one.

Chavs are the worst. When I first saw and heard of chavs, I was dumbfounded. They somehow managed the take the very worst thing that America has to offer in wannabe gangster rap culture and imported to white English people. How did this happen?

about the female Christian artists deti mentions – the percentage who divorce is unbelievably high, and in almost every case, it is because she was cheating and in almost every case the husband, upon discovering it, was willing to reconcile but the women would not. Amy Grant’s husband was willing to stay married despite her affairs, for example. And let’s not forget that paragon of virtue, Sandi Patti. Throughout the entire 1980s she was singing at sold-out venues and testifying about the Lord, and then going back to her hotel to commit adultery with one of her backing singers. When her husband found out, she divorced him even though he begged her not to in order to avoid harming their children.

Well I guess when they decided to cheat on their husband they had already checked out of the marriage.

I wish just one time, one of these higher profile cases where the woman divorces the guy she could just be bluntly honest and say “He turned into a loser so I dumped his ass”. Will never happen I know.

I probably could find an incident of guy divorcing his wife and then saying “I turned her in for a younger model” though.

Oh, and one more thing about Sandi Patti. When she divorced John Helvering, she was *temporarily* cast out of polite Christian recording artist society. Then she wrote a book entitled “Broken in the Back Row” in which she does a mea culpa and then testifies about how Jesus has healed and forgiven her. Maybe that is so, He certainly can heal those who are willing, but am I jaded for noticing that as soon as she released this book, suddenly she was welcomed back into the fold with open arms by people like The Gaithers? Oh, but I forgot, we are not supposed to expect there to be any earthly consequences for an adulterous slut. ‘Cause of how Jesus did not condemn that one adulterous slut in the Bible, remember? I must be judgmental and unChristlike!

A man’s gotta be careful married to a woman with fame, notoriety, or who earns more money. These famous or rich women eclipse their husband in status, meaning their lower profile husbands just are not attractive to them anymore. Amy Grant married a man even more famous and established than she is. WIth Patti, who married a backup singer, who knows? Could be that her first husband (her former manager) was a SAHD kitchen bitch, or wasn’t with her on tour (out of sight out of mind), or was a beta simp where her backup singer was more alpha.

The more commonly applicable situation is SAHDs married to female breadwinners or doublie income marriages where she far outearns him. In such a case it is pretty easy for her to find someone more alpha.

Paula White Ministries was in bankruptcy when she divorced. She also has had many plastic surgeries as well. She had a surgical facelift that completely made her unrecognizable. Apart from Benny Hinn, there was a rumor about that Jakes character, another mega pastor out of Dallas I believe. She also gifted Jakes a blue Bentley

The comment about game not being conclusively proven in a large study and thus somehow being invalid is really tired cliche that needs to die already. Social sciences simply don’t work like that. Even if they did, game still includes a strong amount of randomness (including tools for dealing with said randomness) that makes it unsuitable to experiments like “two groups… blah blah blah)”. Then it’s also haraam – forbidden – for social scientists who wish to retain standing in the academia, because we all know how many “sexist” assumptions it would entail.

And finally, I can’t see any particular player or group of players signing up for such a public experiment. Why would they? They have nothing to gain because they’re already happy and satisfied (generally speaking), and everyone will ridicule them as weirdos, creeps or whatever other terms that men who improve their place in the sexual market encounter. The study should offer each of them guaranteed, substantial rewards and have a strong backing. Just empty taunting on the internet is not “offering a reward”.

“I didn’t get a divorce because I had a great marriage and then along came Vince Gill. Gary and I had a rocky road from day one. I think what was so hard—and this is (what) one of our counselors said—sometimes an innocent party can come into a situation, and they’re ike a big spotlight. What they do is reveal, by comparison, the painful dynamics that are already in existence.”

I wonder how many christian girls saw this, and reasoned the same way, justifying their own failure to submit as ‘irreconciliable differences.’

Deti, care to run this through the hamsterlator? Or does this exceed the manufacturer recommendations?

I dont think it is a great secret that women behave badly. Its more that the feminine imperative has successfully managed to market a defective product.

“It is certainly true that class is so important in England. As a quick test flick over to Heartiste and look at the picture there now of the guy pushing the stroller and the slender curvy chick beside him. Heartiste sees that girl as desirable – all I see is KOMEN or Chav; that is to say underclass – I can almost hear the accent!”

Sadly true. One reason why the foreign women on dating sites look so hot is that we cannot detect the class signals that are obvious in women of our own culture.

Again, it is quite comical that despite a number of serious men over 30 who attest that Game has real value across multiple areas of life (Dalrock, Deti, Boxer, Badger, myself, and others on this thread alone), the anti-game nuts still insist :

1) That these men are not capable of deciding for themselves that the benefits they have seen are not real, and that they have been duped.
2) That Game is a fraud, even though these men have not spent money on a seminar, and I myself insist that one does NOT need to spend much money to learn Game. No seminars.. Where is the fraud, if no money is spent?
3) That Game = feather boas and funny hats, even though none of these men have ever purchased those things.

Ybm’s bona-fide meltdown above, full of projection, says it all. I mean, a number of serious men over 30 say that Game has helped them, and yet the anti-Game nuts insist that these men cannot see the supposed fraud for what it is. I wonder how the anti-Game nuts plan to turn this satisfied practitioners into dissatisfied ones.

Lastly, note that no blog that writes primarily anti-Game articles has any traffic whatsoever (someone who writes only 1% of their articles against Game, like AVfM, don’t count as predominantly anti-Game). Blogs that are either about Game (Roissy, Roosh) or otherwise accept the reality of Game (Dalrock, The Spearhead, Chuck, and formerly InMalaFide) get vastly more traffic.

The sheer intellectual emptiness of their ‘arguments’ is stunning. It is blindingly obvious that most anti-game nuts spent $3000 on a seminar, and did not find a silver bullet. So they are now bitter.

In fact, I would say that without seeing the value of Game, a man cannot truly have taken the red pill.

This looks to be from a 1999 article in some Baptist magazine or newspaper.

Here are some more quotes.

“”__People who knew the couple personally were not surprised by the divorce, Grant said, adding they had been in counseling for years.
___Grant said she was taught as a child that divorce is wrong. She never expected to become a divorce statistic, she said, and felt like a failure for not keeping her wedding vows.
___”I stood up in front of a packed-out church and made a vow before God about–as best I could–how I would lead my life. And I failed in that,” she said. “Failure’s incredibly humbling.”
___Grant said she has learned failed marriages often are “not so much about good and bad people, but about good and bad combinations.” She worked hard at making her marriage work, she said, but her personal life “kept spiraling downward.” She declined to elaborate, saying it was too private to discuss.
___”There’s not a week that doesn’t go by that I don’t really cry out from the soles of my feet and just say, ‘God, let me go back. How could this have worked out differently?'” she said.
___”At some point, you see the path ahead of you, and you say, ‘I have to walk this path because I believe it’s the path that I have to walk,’ regardless of anybody’s opinion.”
___Though the divorce has been “unbelievably humbling” it also has been healing, she said. “It makes me incredibly thankful that God is a God of second chances.”
___”I didn’t get a divorce because I had a great marriage and then along came Vince Gill. Gary and I had a rocky road from day one. I think what was so hard–and this is (what) one of our counselors said–sometimes an innocent party can come into a situation, and they’re like a big spotlight. What they do is reveal, by comparison, the painful dynamics that are already in existence.”
______”I guess I would say, judgment is usually exercised from a distance, but in more than one instance the thing that has brought about change (in people) is compassion,” she said. “Jesus led by compassion. No one is ever changed because of judgment. No one’s ever healed through judgment.””

So here’s your hamsterlation.

I promised my first husband I would love him and be a good wife to him and I failed. But it wasn’t my fault because my personal life sucked, and what that was is none of your damn business. I am here to talk about how divorce is healing and strengthening and you can’t judge me, not to talk about how it was my fault, cuz it wuzn’t.

I wish I could go back and change it because I really don’t want to be here talking to you on the orders of my record label and my agent and my publicist, trying to salvage what’s left of my career after my hamster did a number on it. I got a Christmas album coming out and a tour coming up in spring 2000. This is damage control. Can’t you see that?

I could see that I had to divorce my first husband. It was the path I had to walk. I had to be true to myself, regardless of what God thought or my first husband thought or my kids wanted.

But I am thankful for my divorce, because it healed me. God healed me by letting me out of my first marriage. I never really loved Gary because we (no, HE) had all these problems. I came in as a babe in the woods, and just turned a light on all his issues. The failure of our marriage is totally his fault. I just showed up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You can’t judge me because you don’t know what happened, you weren’t there, and you don’t know how I feel. Because how I feel is what’s most important. The facts are not important. My kids aren’t important. You have to have compassion, or you’re not really a Christian. A true Christian won’t judge me. Oh, and by the way, buy my record! Michael W. Smith, call me, OK?

TFH you are completely ignoring my refutations.
>Again, it is quite comical that despite a number of serious men over 30 who attest that Game has real value across multiple areas of life (Dalrock, Deti, Boxer, Badger, myself, and others on this thread alone),

Again, my objection is to PUA Game – Neil Strauss, Mystery, Roosh, etc. The major proponents of PUA Game are the charlatans who sell their product.

When you use “game” to describe what Dalrock advocates, you are introducing an incompatible definition to a previously defined term. That is the fallacy of equivocation.

> the anti-game nuts still insist :
>1) That these men are not capable of deciding for themselves that the benefits they have seen are not real, and that they have been duped.

I am anti-PUA-game. I claim that Roosh has failed to achieve the sexual prowess of which he has boasted. The facts support me.

If, on the other hand, we call Keoni Galt’s capability to maintain a good marriage “patriarchal game,” then I am pro “patriarchal game.”

>The sheer intellectual emptiness of their ‘arguments’ is stunning. It is blindingly obvious

Apparently my lengthy point-by-point rebuttal of TFH was so “stunning” that TFH lost the ability to type responses.

Once again, TFH, what data can you personally confirm? Can you vouch for the effects of seduction techniques? Have you done any field studies? Did you make any records of your sexual conquests with and without game? Or are you merely a theorist?

TFH seems to be saying that he is an armchair theorist who never goes to nightclubs and seduces women, but he “understands” the theory of nightclub seduction, so he should be recognized as an authority on nightclub seduction.

>Blogs that are accept the reality of Game (Dalrock, … get vastly more traffic.

Okay, here is the crux of the matter. This is Dalrock’s site. Dalrock exercises editorial and moderation authority here.

Direct questions to Dalrock:
1. What is *your* definition of game? Do you think it means PUA Game? Do you think it means anything involving charisma?

2. I have posted lengthy comments arguing that:
a. Keoni Galt does not support PUA game.
b. Roosh is a failure at his avowed goal of reliable seduction methods.

Women devour her quotes and apply them, assisting their hamsters whenever needed, whenever a hamster gets stuck with any of that olde-timey stuff like right and wrong and accountability.

Women took “yea, hath God said” hook line, and hamster. Now they spout it to the other women, just in case any of them are busted by that meanie God.

I wish we could just see someone in that scenario just confess to being the villain they know they are. Just own it. It’s quite liberating. No more damage control. Just embrace the horror. At least then you don’t have to be constantly full of hamster droppings.

Interesting Sam S. I just said the same to my apprentice last week. He made an error in his soldering and had a leak. I pointed this out to him and he was just about to start the excuse train. I said just own your mistake and move on. If you do not own it, you will never learn from it. He stopped the excuse train, admitted the mistake and moved on.

My wife and I raised our boys this way. Thet were taught that if we asked them directly did you do something that the result of may entail punishment, and they answered quickly and honestly with no excuses, the punishment would be benign. If however we discovered that they had lied to us, watch out!

We had an example of this training come home about 2 years ago with the youngest son. He had participated in an activity that we both did not want him in. When asked about such, without hesitation he said yes he had. I have never been more proud of the boy. His punishment was benign, and he has never been involved in that activity again.

We can raise truthful children, but we must invest the time and effort. I wish that Miss Grant had, as you say, just owned her fault, I would probably still respect her to this day. After her excuse train, I lost all appreciation of her.

yfr
If one observers a herd of elk, or any other mammal, it becomes rapidly obvious that the females only back themselves up towards certain select males.
Do you want to get some?
Or do you want to just watch from the sidelines?
Perhaps you would most of all prefer to stuff your fingers in your ears and hum loudly.

You will never get through to them. No matter how simply you describe it.

The facts (as detailed by me), are simply not on their side. That they don’t accept this shows them as being intellectually empty (and why they need Game, if for nothing other than basic social skills).

Yeah, all the serious people on this thread alone (Rum, Deti, Dalrock, Badger, Boxer, TFH, etc.) who attest that Game has helped them, and has worked, are wrong. Don’t they see that they have been defrauded? They have been defrauded even though they haven’t spent any money – don’t they see it?

“The more commonly applicable situation is SAHDs married to female breadwinners or doublie income marriages where she far outearns him. In such a case it is pretty easy for her to find someone more alpha.”

I see it now more money=more alpha.
Good game is saying hello by punching a guy in the the face.
Easy!
Since I have little money,I just need to punch a lot more random guys a lot harder in the face,and to ramp it up,elsewhere.
Amirite?
Because I can do that.
Find the alpha male and take him out,then the bitches be mine!
Success.

I cite 8oxer’s comment, not to debate the anti-game nuts, but rather to show the others the intellectual emptiness of that group. Boxer states :

Game taught me to be assertive, not just with women. Game improved my life, not just with women, but more profoundly with men.I’m happier now than I was before I ran across the stuff.

A normal person would read this and want to achieve the same for himself.

But the anti-Game nuts would claim that anyone like Boxer who feels Game has helped him is wrong, has been defrauded (even if no money was spent), and doesn’t grasp why Game is bad. He doesn’t grasp that this outcome was no more than ‘placebo’.

More seriously, anyone who ostensibly cares about Men’s Rights should be happy that a man benefited from new information, and is attesting to it. Yet, these anti-game nuts see this and think it has to be stopped. They, of course, have no alternatives.

That should expose to all the emptiness of the anti-Game zealot’s position, and that in reality, these are suckers who spent $3000 on a needless seminar, and expected a miraculous transformation overnight. Disgruntled customers, nothing more.

I would rather spend my time and energy giving long thrusts into your wife and daughters.
Have you ever had a woman arrested for stalking you? Jailed, strip-seached, and slapped around by the cops?
If you have, you got some desperately eager blow-jobs afterwards
Discuss.

yfrAgain, my objection is to PUA Game – Neil Strauss, Mystery, Roosh, etc. The major proponents of PUA Game are the charlatans who sell their product.

Then may I humbly suggest that you take your objections to a PUA site, such as heartiste? Given that this is not a PUA site, it seems rather pointless for you to continue to clog up the thread with your objections to something that very few men here are interested in discussing.

Really, this particular form of trolling for flames gets boring after a while.

That’s correct. I’ve never spent huge sums of money on the learning of game. Most of the information about it is free for the taking on the interwebs, after all. In response to the earlier query, I don’t know if it is worth 2M dollars to me, but it’s definitely made me a more self-actualized man.

I am trying to stay out of the fracas, not just out of respect for the site and its admin(s), but because I’m largely neutral on the morality of game. In fact, I am sympathetic to some of the points of the critics. Some of the tactics of game strike me as disgusting.

For example: I even find the harsher “negging” that people do to be disgusting. Many women do respond favorably to being called an idiot (albeit in a playful way). I don’t use this, but have seen it work. The women who would respond well, I would suggest, *are* idiots. This inevitably leads one to ask who the bigger idiot is: the idiot who knows she’s an idiot, or the gamer who wants to get next to her… That’s one example, there are others.

For the most part, though, I’ve found much of what I’ve learned to be useful and applicable to much more than just getting next to women. If there’s a secret to game, it’s that you don’t need to buy a feather boa or a ridiculous hat, you just need to believe in yourself. I’m also of the opinion that methodological reductionism is generally useful for many things. Studying the process of mate selection, attraction and courtship ought to be counted as at least as important as studying high energy proton collisions and the behavior of black holes.

The lesson here strikes me as almost a recycling of theological indulgences. Do whatever you want, because grace means compassion and forgiveness, not judgement. This whole approach troubles me greatly, and contradicts the whole working out faith in fear and trembling bit. Plus the fact that men are usually blamed for divorce whilst women get a free pass, support groups, cash and prizes etc.

Then again, as is often said here, women are not good on the cause and effect thing. Except when it works in their favour, apparently.

Then may I humbly suggest that you take your objections to a PUA site, such as heartiste?

Indeed. But note that even Heartiste doesn’t sell a product, so his wailing would be moot even there. And Roosh sells inexpensive e-books that cost $8. Gasp!!! The fraud!!!

And again, I have stated that it costs no money to learn Game. One does not need to go to any seminar or boot camp, and certainly not for LTR Game. yfr should be wholeheartedly agreeing with this, but instead writes verbose screeds of little coherence.

As I said before, the anti-Game crowd are really just people who plonked down $3000 on a needless seminar, and expected a miracle. Since the miracle did not happen, they are disgruntled. Nothing more to it than that.

Again, my objection is to PUA Game – Neil Strauss, Mystery, Roosh, etc. The major proponents of PUA Game are the charlatans who sell their product.

OK, so if someone learns PUA Game *without* buying any product from those people (which many do), then you should have no problem.

So your problem is with people selling products, rather than the material of Game itself.

Answer my refutations of TFH, agree on common definitions and facts. Engage in a real debate.

For that to happen, you would actually have to have a refutation, and present facts, and even demonstrate knowledge of Game. You have not done this, and appear unlikely to.

That most of the people on this thread, who are not PUAs and have not spent money on those PUA instructors that you hate, disagree with you, should be a clue that you are arguing the wrong things in the wrong place. Game can help you evaluate such situations better too, and gain higher social awareness.

“Women who have sex with a man on the first or second “hook up” are telling the guy that she’s having sex with every guy that she goes out with. She gets the reputation for an easy lay, and for a time she may enjoy the attention, but many will come to realize that one night stands don’t produce happiness and peace because only love can do that; and love requires committment and devotion to that one, special person. Otherwise, it’s a shallow and empty life. The greatest and most precious gift that God has bestowed upon women is the beauty & pleasure of her body to share exclusively with the man with whom she is in love and completely devoted to (and he to her). When she squanders that precious gift with every guy she goes out with–because ‘ everyone’s doing it’– she loses that treasury and the memory of her foolishness will quietly haunt her for the rest of her life. Make life count; make love count: save yourself for that one person who is entitled to, and deserves your love, and see how rich and wonderful life can be.”

Well, I hate to say it but I think yfr – love the avatar – does have a point, and Game does look a bit like a religion. You know: I pray to God X and wonderful things happen to me; if wonderful things fail to happen when I pray, God X does not want me to have those wonderful things, at least not yet. Thus: I practise Game on Suzie Slut and get laid, thus I have Game; I practise Game on Suzie Slut, and fail to get laid: that is not the fault of Game, (and Suzie is just playing exceptionally hard to get – for now) or else some women, in this case Suzie Slut are a waste of space and not worth gaming – try an0ther hottie like that Helen of Troy and avoid one-itis.

That there are certain pretty-boy snake-oil salesmen (I exclude Krauser, who is the real-deal) pandering Game is further cause for suspicion; and then (I have written this before) Game(smanship) filmed as School for Scoundrels (1960) was intended not to be taken seriously – one laughed at the outrageous behaviour of Terry-Thomas, but did not think that it was supposed to be more realistic than Bruce Willis in Die Hard I, II, III and IV. Game thus looks like a rehash (much as The Secret – much loved by women for bringing success, money and love in to their lives – is a rehash of something very similar for the 1910s – rehashed wishful thinking).

I am no big fan of Karl Popper, but is Game falsifiable?- I don’t think so.

I’ll just assume that Dalrock’s silence indicates that he thinks Roosh’s anti-Christian PUA game is compatible with other folks’ Christian LTR game.
It appears that
comment-63457
comment-63456
and
comment-63454
are inappropriate to this site and no one else is going to engage with those points.

>I am no big fan of Karl Popper, but is Game falsifiable?- I don’t think so.

Well, psychology is not just falsifiable, it has peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you take the trouble to define your terms and debate like an educated person, you will be able to break “Game” down into falsifiable science.

The problem is that Roosh’s PUA game is not just falsifiable, it’s already been falsified, as I have argued above. TFH and Rum are going to dance around as much as possible without addressing the fact that their role model, Roosh, fails to achieve results whenever an independent witness is around to report on his failure.

But don’t worry, if the PUA Game boosters never define their terms, they’ll never have to admit that they are wrong. They can continue to cite testimonials from anonymous readers who were inspired by armchair theory. They can continue to ignore their lack of results. They will probably be very enthusiastic, and if that enthusiasm is enough to perpetuate the “manosphere,” it need never die.

… and yet, as I mentioned above, Krauser clearly is very successful with women. There are those who would argue that hitting on newly-arrived east-european au-pairs is easy game [do you have au-pairs in america I wonder?] – but of course it is easy to screw up. Krauser however has some physique and that is very attractive to women. What would be more interesting (perhaps he will say) is how he would succeed with some corporate home-counties bitch with an OK-yah accent, Daddy’s Merc and endless holidays in St Moritz and the Bahamas and an ex bf probably called Jeremy or Charles or Tarquin? – but Krauser is a banker-type and flush with money, probably full of confidence (inner game) so one would expect him to impress. A different type of Game would surely be required.

The thing that stunned me with Athol Kay and that is reiterated in a light psychology blog post linked to recently here is that playing the “nice guy” card no matter what your wife does is a great way to destroy attraction and then ultimately sink your relationship and wreck the prospects of your children.

I put nine years of my life into “turning the other cheek” and “returning good for evil” under the belief that God would ultimately bless it. It did keep the marriage together after a fashion until I could find some other tactics… but I am experiencing cognitive dissonance as a result of having to consciously overturn the core of what I thought being a Christian is about.

I am disillusioned more about the church than about the bible, however. It’s not that Jesus is wrong… it’s that every verse in the bible that is inconvenient to feminists has been spun into irrelevance. At the beginning of my marriage, I could see those verses… and as I let them slide for my “equal”, I feel that I have ultimately been corrected by God for this infidelity to his Word.

(World view… shaken, but intact.)

It’s tough. Any church I go to where women speak in the Sunday school classes… the structure of the conversations mirror those of the conversations seen here with the feminist-trolls. The women generally speak up only in an appeal for affirmation. The best women in these meetings speak of their struggles in an attempt to apply the scriptures in life… but they are afraid that it will make people feeeel bad and that makes them feeeeeeeel bad. It seems like the obvious response for a leader is to encourage and redirect: “yes, it’s tough… but God knows best because blah blah blah… and so we should stand strong and wear the full armor of God… blah blah blah.” But those sorts of gentle redirection don’t occur– culturally, it’s so much more important to us to pump up the self esteem of these clueless women.

Coming back full circle… the clarity of vision bestowed by some of these red pill ideas confers greater responsibility on men… and we will be held accountable for what we did in response to it. But what these church leaders do with women in their bible studies is exactly how I “lead” my wife for nine years. And the things I have reaped from that is not God abandoning me… but basic cause and effect.

You can debate till the cows come home about whether Game is or is not Christian.

What’s funny and tragic at the same time is that the Church — run by women for women, staffed by women — has no idea how to teach its men to be men. It has no idea what a man truly is. I am so damn pissed off about this — Christian men have grown up in the church, being faithful to the Word. They did it because their parents told them it was right and good and that if they did what they were told, they would be blessed with cars and jobs and houses and wives and safe, happy, prosperous lives. All they had to do was be nice to girls, give girls what they wanted, be good little gentlemen, and a nice girl he liked would select him and they would get married and live happily ever after.

And they heard this from who?

Teachers, most of whom were women.

Sunday school teachers and pastors, most of whom were women or thoroughly emasculated and pussified men.

Scout leaders, most of whom were barred by policy from talking about sex or relationships, and who were dealing with boys, half of whom don’t live with a man they are related to.

Guidance counselors, most of whom are women or thoroughly pussified men.

College professors, most of whom are politically liberal or radical, have spent their whole lives steeped in liberalism and feminism, and buy wholesale into feminist ideology, gender politics, class warfare, and open hostility to masculine assertion.

So they did that. They did everything they were told. they got educations. They got jobs. They held the doors, bought the gifts, bought the meals and movie tickets, used the pedestal. And now these Christian men either can’t find women, can’t attract or keep a woman, have deeply unsatisfying and miserable marriages, or have been frivorced.

The Church, which has stood for more than 2000 years and claims to be the greatest moral force for defending families (the head of whom is supposed to be the man/husband according to its founding document), is instead having circles run around it by

1. A former Christian turned atheist New Zealand expatriate to the US
2. An agnostic libertarian from Hawaii who fashions his nom de blog after an Ayn Rand character
3. A mid-level D.C. bureaucrat with a flair for slaying poon and floridly writing his musings on HBD, gender relations, the nature of women, and their synergistic effects on the body politic
4. An oracle from Dallas with a facility for statistics and keen insights into social and gender dynamics

I find it funny and tragic and enlightening that a ragtag group of men with nothing in common, not even their core beliefs, have more to teach men about being men than could be learned in 20 years in a church.

‘Go and sin no more’ he said. If that isn’t a damning neg I don’t know one when I see one – and this from the guy who threw the Usurers out of The Temple and made those Swine jump off the cliff – and he wasn’t sending flowers on Valentine’s Day either and didn’t he offer some cutting remark to his Mum. I’d say he was full of Game, but I am just a humble penitent and not a Doctor of Divinity.

Although it won’t do any good, I second Alpha Mission’s request. It would be nice to have a Christian voice in the mix; the absence of Christian Men’s Defense Network and the less frequent posting at Society of Phineas has left a void. But there have been a couple new manosphere blogs started up by Christian men in the last couple of weeks, so hopefully one of those will really take off.

Deti, it is not “the Church” saying these things. These varied churchian cults are not following the religion as it has been passed down since the Pentecost. Every man (and now woman) is free to interpret the religion according to their own whims and personal beliefs. There is no single authority amongst the churchian cults so the problem is systematic. The religion begins matching the culture rather than the other way around. If you have an entire degenerate culture saying that this is how things should be run these cults will match their beliefs just so long as the pews (and more importantly the offering plates) remain full. Femifascism has taken root in our society and so these cultists have jumped on the bandwagon. They already turned their backs on Sacraments years ago, on the Fathers, on the Saints, on the Liturgy. Did you honestly believe that they wouldn’t turn their backs on proper culture and civilization if their religious tingles told them to?

Shouting at the wall I guess but as I check the more “honest” PUA sites like Krauser and VK or commenters like YaReally they all admit to striking out A LOT. It’s just, with their technique and temperaments, they get up again and keep on going like the Walking Dead, and they absolutely will not stop. They are the first to admit that failure goes with the territory and the key is perserverance. Most approaches fail or flake, OK they move on to the next one. Though when they succeed they do preen a bit.

And I never understood any of them to insist that ALL men must use ALL the tricks or frames ALL the time; I always got from them that the individual guy should pick what he thinks will work best and adapt to his personality so he can do what is most effective.

Roissy himself said rejection is the badge of honor and the occupational hazard of the PUA.

I have to believe hardcore PUAs get rejected left and right, in part because they do so much approaching and interacting not just with women, but with the world at large. Even the best PUAs have said they have at best a 15 to 20% success rate (except I don’t know how you define success which could be anyhting from number close to kiss close to making out to eventually bedding the woman).

I have a friend that understands game very well.He will see 10 women that he likes …and will approach them one at a time,and he will say to them…”want to get a case of beer and go screw?…….or don’t you like beer?”…….one or two of them will say…”I love beer”….L*……works all the time for him!

Even the best PUAs have said they have at best a 15 to 20% success rate

Of course. It is a numbers game. I would say that when I was in the PUA phase, It took about 12 daytime approaches for one to result in sex a few days later. Now, one can do 12 approaches in a single weekend…

Now, the anti-Game nuts think that unless 100% of approaches result in sex, Game is a fraud. Of course, this is the miracle THEY expected when they spent $3000 on a needless seminar, so they are disgruntled now.

Fred Flange,

And I never understood any of them to insist that ALL men must use ALL the tricks or frames ALL the time; I always got from them that the individual guy should pick what he thinks will work best and adapt to his personality so he can do what is most effective.

You are right. None of the credible PUAs demonstrate the strawman that the anti-Game nuts hide behind. The critics like yfr are spending their lives slamming something that they don’t even understand.

“The critics like yfr are spending their lives slamming something that they don’t even understand.”

What they fail to understand is that spitting Game is useless when the product you’re selling is terrible. You still have to have some value. Game is simply selling yourself in the best possible light and having the courage to sell yourself to women.

You can’t be a fat aspie and expect learning to talk to women to work.

The uglier truth is that you need everything at an acceptable level to have any kind of regular success with women. So you need Game AND some looks AND decent job AND style. It’s simply SWPL and churchians were taught anti-game so it was the missing piece of the puzzle. So when learn some game and it works, they are fervent in their praise of it.

YFR arguements are terrible. He doesn’t even know the basics of what he talks about. He seems to not have any basic social intelligence. These people are actually argueing that learning to talk to girls is something that will not help men get laid and if this magically thing called be social with the opposite sex exists it can’t be learned.

TFH:Now, the anti-Game nuts think that unless 100% of approaches result in sex, Game is a fraud.

It isn’t so much that as that a “technique” with a 10% or so success rate isn’t really a technique. When someone tells me that if you persist in this 10% effective technique – not with the same woman by the way, but with a different woman every time – it will eventually succeed, I’m inclined to conclude that the technique is acting as kind of a placebo, and all the work is being done by the persistence.

Snake oil results in a ‘cure’ for cancer about 10% of the time, as long as we are testing a different cancer patient each time.

Example quotes:
“No matter what else they brought to the table, couples seemed to agree on one thing: No one believed the husbands demonstrated loyal love in their marriages.”
“In almost every case, a wife approaches marriage with a deeper understanding of and passion for loyal love. … I began to identify this as an aspect of a wife’s inner beauty. This inner beauty exposes areas where a husband is lacking.”
“unlike Isaiah, who was reduced to humble contrition in the presence of such loveliness, husbands tend to fight back. “My wife wants too much from me,” they declare. The wives counter with a long list of their husbands’ failures. This tension increases because neither the husband nor the wife responds well to her gift of inner beauty.”

Ive been looking for the anti-game nuts….are they in the dry goods near crackers and chips or must they be refrigerated?

Seriously though, one imputes a strawman to anyone expressing but full on game adherence while using such strawman evoking terms as anti-game nuts. There may be some kooky characters somewhere who take anti-game to a nutty level I suppose, but in these threads at Dalrock the religiosity of the gamers , though not nutty per se, is far and above a greater seeming leap than those questioning it.

I cannot think of an angle that has not been covered to exhaustion, yet ending with the same you just don’t understand it rejoinders.

The greatest pressure brought to bear would be those who take a moral objection to game. One the gamer side, it seems they have even a higher degree of emotional investment and I wonder why.

Zippy – Having read a lot of the three R’s, it looks like game is not a technique so much as it is a state of mind. Maxim #1: “Game is learned charisma, streamlined seduction. Game is as sincere as its practitioner’s intent.” Women respond to a man with a set of characteristics. Game is not a tactic like and armoured thrust or a double envelopment. Game is the very concept of having a tactic. If you have a strategy to win you have game. Most men who do not have game really don’t have a workable, realistic strategy, and that is why they fail. Armies have been destroyed and men slaughtered time and time again by generals who just say, “Okie doke, kill the other bloke”. Not every tactic works and some are countered but everyone who wins has some plan and anyone who has failed to plan might as well have planned to fail.

As a side note to the “game is a lie b/c nerds can’t bugger Jessica Alba” conversation from earlier – a guy still needs to understand his place in the SMP. A guy who is on the lower spectrum, even if he is a nice guy (TM) on top of it all, is not going to get the top of the line because a hot girl has hot choices. You still have to beat out all of other guys who want to blitzkreig her Poland-ball with his fleischgewehr. Now, having game can be the difference between the fat aspie sodding the chubby 30 year old HR director and him abusing himself in the basement to the hot chick on xvideos.

This is in contrast to the default tactic I grew up with. “Just be yourself.” “My soul mate is out there somewhere….” And so on….

Step One: Get a crush on a girl.
Step Two: Think about her all the time.
Step Three: Write her poetry.
Step Four: Ask her to be your girfriend.
Step Five: Be really really sad when she says no; after all… she was THE ONE!

Then there are the success-sabotaging ideas.

Looking back… I remember the guys that got girls. The girl in front of me in the eighth grade… she was dating a high school student. She talked about him like he was a god. The cute girl in the grade behind me when I was in high school that flirted with me and that later turned into a real slut? She ended up dating and giving it up to a high school grad that was an EMT. The girl that dumped my friend because a guy that actually owned a car asked her out a week later. The babe in the theater production that was banging the director the whole time?

Then there was the middle school girl who threw herself at me when I was in high school. Hey… that was my chance. I am for once the older, cooler guy in these scenarios and what do I do…? I dump her because I want a more equal relationship– someone the same age as me… and the same status as me. BUT I DIDN’T REALIZE THAT SUCH A SCENARIO WAS AS UNLIKELY AS IT WAS– in spite of all the evidence I’d witnessed first hand! She would have done anything for me. Anything! And she would have positively glowed when she could brag to her friends about having this guy….

Then there was the much hotter girl that went for me when I went to college. It was an illusion– I had seemed to her to be the happening “Big Man On Campus” type. The spell was broken when I said to her, “wow… I just never thought… I could be with a girl like you…!” It was like Groundhog day, or something. As soon as I said that… the attraction was gone. I thought it would flatter her. In reality, it was a cue that I didn’t have nearly the amount of dominance/status that she thought I had. It was a rare moment where I actually had some sex appeal… but I had no idea how to nurture it or preserve it.

If Game means something as sweeping as that it doesn’t mean much of anything. I recently read on a different manosphere blog that all human behaviours are Game, it is just that some are good and some are bad. When “Game” means everything it means nothing.

I’ve been told lots of times that Game is a set of specific amoral tools for men to help them in their dealings with women: tools which can be used for good or evil, as suits the man’s purpose. I am trying to take that claim seriously, and will continue to analyze it at my own blog. If Game is something as reasonably specific as a set of techniques then its claims can be take seriously, and will stand or fall on their own merits when compared to placebo or other alternatives.

If however Game means something as sweeping as having an anti-feminist state of mind or being persistent or whatever then I think it clearly falls to the criticisms that guys like Cane Caldo and YBM and others level at it. If it means all that, it is basically a religious view. There isn’t anything wrong with religious views per se – I hold to quite a few of them myself – but if Game is a new modern religion I’ll be about as skeptical of it as I am of scientology (which also, by the way, is more effective than placebo).

Alcohol is actually a more effective medicine than placebo or even prescription medicine in many cases. My own guess at this point is that Game is very much like alcohol in terms of its good effects compared to placebo, its bad effects when consumed excessively, etc.

Zippy, perhaps I was being a bit too obtuse with it. Game is strategy for attracting women – learned charisma, streamlined seduction. There are tools that work BECAUSE they show the traits that are attractive. Several writers have mentioned “internalized game”. Rollo has written about natural alphas – men who aren’t thinking about gaming women, men who just do as part of their nature. Practicing game helps someone who is not a natural alpha to internalize these traits. But ultimately, you will have to use the right tools to build these traits until the become internalized. Some of these tactics you as an individual won’t be able to pull off. They are just wrong for you. They might be good for Roosh, but won’t work for you. Some tactics are just stupid. Being a girl’s emotional tampon will make you as attractive to her as shoving feather up your bum and saying ‘quack’ will make you a good swimmer. But there will be others that fit with your personality and skills and you will be able to develop these and internalize them, and build further confidence through the successes.

The thing that is scary is that 99% of the marriage counseling advice out there claims that you can suck up, supplicate, “communicate”, buy flowers, have date night… all of that… and “fix” your marriage.

Experience demonstrates that women only have the hots for the older, cooler dude that will make her the envy of her friends. You want to be the director of the play… the boss at the office… the big man on campus… for her. Conventional wisdom points in the exact opposite direction… even to the point of guilt tripping any guy that dates a younger woman and so forth. Certainly the churchian advice is for you to abdicate your position as “Mr. Big” at every point conceivable.

This is not strategy. This is observing reality… and formulating a principle based on what appears to work most of the time. The reason it looks like a cult or snake oil is that it is so politically incorrect as to be unthinkable. Pointing these things out in mixed company is begging for a slap down… even if most of the guys in the room are compelled by experience to admit it sounds infinitely more realistic than the party line.

The testable hypothesis here is that marriage/attraction tactics that are based on an egalitarian view will necessarily operate to the detriment of the wife’s love and bonding level. The non-egalitarian is the only principle that can maintain wet panties and so forth over time.

“How many times has the word “Aspie” appeared on this comment section now?

And you accuse women of speaking out of both sides of their mouths!

“[D: This isn’t your lawn.]”

And you accuse women of solipsism!
”

I’m pefectly fine with people that obese and have low social intelligence, however when those same people whine, complain, cry and also vehemently scream about how you are wrong. That’s when things get a little frustrating.

So someone complains about being obese and that they repluse people and that people need to be more kind and I tell them “Lift weights and eat a low carb diet and here is the resources for you” and that same person starts throwing a fit about that’s horrible advice and blah blah blah, I just go fuck that guy.

You are a pseudo-aspie that has problems with social interactions. “Ok, learn some Game, and here are the resources.” Waaahaha, that doesn’t work, learning how to talk to people in a way to gets what you want would never ever work. WAAAHAHH. Fuck that guy.

This is Dalrock’s lawn. How the hell can you start shit with him on his blog and then you say you own the place and accuse him of being solipisic simply because he keeps order on his own digital home?

There is no obvious reason why Christians should associate rejection of feminism and egalitarianism with modern hedonistic pickup artists by using the term “Game”, though. As I’ve said before, I think that approach is just postmodern feminism.

It is true that all the egalitarian and feminist indoctrination of young men is crap. That is the ‘critical’ side of the manosphere, it is what Dalrock focuses on for the most part, and it is completely true. But it is equivocal to call rejection of feminism “Game”.

“Game” is the tools, the prescriptive side of the manosphere: “do these things to attract and keep the girl”. It is the specific techniques the manosphere recommends that you employ once you have accepted that feminism is a load of hooey. As such it is either some specific recommendations and techniques which can be compared to alternatives (like placebo, alcohol, etc) or it is more of a religion.

Rejecting feminism is not Game. If it were, that would be just to say that Game is Truth; and we are back to it being a basically religious outlook (again, where there isn’t anything wrong with religious outlooks per se, but one probably ought to be skeptical of religious outlooks born yesterday, sprung from the brain of Roissy like Jupiter from the brain of Minerva).

A couple of points:
With respect to the validity of game techniques: I should think even 10% success rate is better than 0%. Generally speaking, what I have drawn from the literature out there is that men need to figure out what works for their own personalities and interests and adapt what works for him and ditch what doesn’t. For example, peacocking doesn’t work for me, it is just not my style at all. But dressing well for the occasion does work for me.

However, the critical aspect of game is not so much about the specific techniques that yfr and so forth hide behind when slamming at it as it is about understanding what makes women tick and what behaviors turn them off. And then it is a matter of learning to avoid those behaviors as many writers have said it’s more important to avoid “turns her off” behavior than do any specific techniques for turning her on. For instance, it’s well known that classic “nice guy” behaviors such as has been taught many men in church settings almost always do *NOT* keep the girl one gets. Assuming one can even get a girl to a first date. Consequently such behaviors must be avoided.

For implementing the understanding of women’s nature in LTR’s, Keoni Galt showed the way and Athol Kay has greatly expanded on it. Does yfr think that Athol and Keoni are frauds?

A number of posters have said no one seems to agree on terms. OK I’ll grant that. But I think everyone here can agree as to the nature of women as expounded by Dalrock, et al. Once we move on from there then everyone just runs off in different directions depending on their respective ideologies and we’ll never get a meeting of minds… that’s ok, I don’t need the drama, I just need to draw on what works for me. And what doesn’t.

@ Dave
God have mercy, that link you posted! All Christians reading here should consider clicking on that link and also leaving a comment. And its on the Gospel Coalitions website! Is nothing uncorrupted? What has happened to our faith?! That is a sick, sick thing right there.

apropos Deti above: I am beginning to wonder wehether there are two sorts of PUA. I know by repute (although I have met him – and I am pleased to say I was with a woman at the time) and from more than one source – so I have confirmation – a guy who has a far greater strike rate than 15% – 20%. This is what happens: He walks into the Bar, eyes up the talent, decides who the best looking girl is, approaches and fifteen minutes later leaves the Bar and has sex – never sees her again. My buddy attests to the fact that one day they were out in the country and came across a newsagents. A few minutes later he is up to his waist in the nearby river having sex with the young assitant newsagent- and then he does her friend too! I am told these are just ordinary young women. Sometimes but not often he is told to get lost. His success rate is therefore up in the 80%+ category. Is he handsome. No- a bull of a man – but he has muscles – in his forties now, and still doing it. I understand he just has this insatiable drive that he must have sex. I knew another guy like that (with the looks and attitude of young Oliver Reed – totally blase) at whom women just threw themselves. Then again there was that other guy I knew who was envious of me ‘You just do not need a woman’ he said ‘whereas I must have one’. The he told me: his gf left him one Friday. On the Monday she returned saying she had changed her mind. ‘Sorry ‘ he said ‘I now have someone else living with me’. He had gone out over the weekend and got a new partner – just like tha. – slim she was too.

The people making the ‘placebo has the same results’ are merely showing their inability to grasp Game.

So improving one’s ability to communicate with women has no correlation to success with women, except over ‘placebo’ (which is what, exactly)? Does ‘placebo’ means no communication skills were improved upon?

Ditto for the ability to approach attractive women and make a connection with them.
Ditto for the ability to read a woman’s signals and escalate in response to those signals.
Ditto for understanding the logistics of seduction, and the anatomy of the seduction process.

When people talking about Game having no effect over ‘placebo’, they don’t realize that a stronger argument is that learning Game does not require taking a seminar or spending big money. That is something I say myself. But then that is an argument against needless, expensive seminars, not an argument against Game. This is a distinction that the anti-Game people are incapable of making.

Zippy claimed :

Might I suggest alcohol as a possibility?

Yet another ‘point’ that necessitates a belief that Game is only about bar pickups, and that LTR Game does not exist. Yeah…. married people use alcohol to improve their marriages. The married men on this thread who say Game has great value are using alcohol in their marital homes.

Day game does not alcohol either. Try again, zippy. You are proving Dalrock’s law pretty well : “The more obvious a fact one is in denial of, the more absurd a counterexample one presents.”.

Testimony: Non-egalitarian relationship tactics has not restored my marriage… but it DOES mean I no longer get creamed in what used to be incessant arguments. In the lingo: I was a frameless jellyfish nice guy husband. In invested huge amounts of energy in to bending over backwards to meet her demands and complaints. Now… I take far less shit from her because… I refuse to take it. But I HAD to have an intellectual and theological basis for this before I could do it. “Death to self” the way I was playing it was turning out to be “death to my marriage.” I may not salvage this relationship… but there is at least something of a MAN developing here for her to finally have a relationship with!

Now… to illustrate that dynamic and the ancillary tactics I had this idea…. Remember Goofus and Gallant from Highlights magazine? What about some cartoons like those? You could have Big Wheel Bob and Patent Clerk Pat… Dave Director and Gerald Gopher… Suck Up Sal and Manly Mac….

I’m afraid they would be taken just as snark by the blue pill types. Still… they could be really funny. (I’m interpolating the sermon/seminar that goes with them in my mind….)

It is all well and good to claim that having a beer is less effective and has worse side effects than negging one’s wife. It may even be true; though I expect that might be on something of a case by case basis, so to speak.

TFH:Now, the anti-Game nuts think that unless 100% of approaches result in sex, Game is a fraud.

Zippy Catholic, who now is posting as Zippy:>It isn’t so much that as that a “technique” with a 10% or so success rate isn’t really a technique.

It is compared to the alternative. Tell me, Zippy, how much of an improveement is 10% over 0%? To put it another way, what number results from 10 divided by 0? 10/0 = ?
You have read the text of van Rooinek – until he used Game techniques, he found it impossible to attract women in his own church, or in any church. Other churchgoing men report the same thing. It appears that you are opposed to church going men actually attracting women whom they can marry. Do you prefer that church going men only remain single, or only get married to women that are not attracted to them?

(Cue the standard tradcon rant “Game Only Works On Sluts” in 3….2….1….)

When someone tells me that if you persist in this 10% effective technique – not with the same woman by the way, but with a different woman every time – it will eventually succeed, I’m inclined to conclude that the technique is acting as kind of a placebo, and all the work is being done by the persistence.

Of course, if you actually studied the techniques, you would learn that persistence is part of the technique, and therefore would not make such a foolish statement, born of ignorance.

But really, Zippy Catholic, I cannot understand why you would care. As a traditional, Catholic, conservative you are logically opposed to PUA’s in any form. Therefore, you should rejoice at a success rate of 10%, and logically desire that their success rate should be 0%. Just like the success rate of the standard, feminized, pedestaizing, submissive, emasculated churchgoing man in the US when it comes to attracting a woman.

Oh, wait. Oops…

ZippyCatholic, “Something” beats “nothing”. And “Nothing” is what the churches – including the Roman Catholic ones – in the US teach men about masculinity, leadership, and how to attract a good woman. So given a choice between 10% success, and 0% success, why do you oppose 10%? Spare me the details of “Back 25 years ago”, please. Your dating experience circa 1987 is about as relevant to young men in 2012 as putting on a raccoon coat and learning to dance the Lindy Hop while playing a ukelele.

Thanks for noticing. Yes, somewhere along the line I stumbled on how to tell WordPress to use my handle, which is Zippy, rather than the name of my blog, which is zippycatholic.

You fellas are missing the point though. The placebo effect is real. It has been demonstrated that (for example) when a sick person takes a sugar pill, it actually has a small impact on his illness (versus doing nothing at all), helping him get better. Interestingly, this is true even when he is completely aware that he is taking a placebo.

The placebo effect shows that (and there are various theories as to why) taking action in and of itself has a beneficial effect, independent of the content of that action. (Obviously if the action is harmful that can offset the placebo effect).

What I’ve observed here is that even the most ardent proponents of Game are only claiming results comparable to what should ordinarily be expected from placebo. What that suggests is that the actual content – Game – is not what is having the beneficial effect. It is merely taking action at all, independent of content – placebo – which is having the beneficial effect.

In order to show that Game itself is effective, it isn’t enough to show that when a man starts taking the actions prescribed by Game his life improves in this or that measurable way. It has to be shown that Game is more effective than placebo. A simple example is that it has to be shown that Bob does better when he negs a girl without drinking a beer ahead of time than Fred does when he drinks a beer ahead of time and doesn’t think about Game.

What I’ve learned in this thread is that even ardent proponents of Game do not claim success rates above what would be expected from placebo (that is, doing something not out of the game play book).

““Find the alpha male and take him out,then the bitches be mine!
Success.”

You do know in Mogadishu, Somalia this a good strategy.”

And if we’re all gaming Somalia will be here.

It’s true: woman are remarkably easy to turn,this is because they are selfish and have no repercussions nor brakes.
Rum’s comment,roughly ” I would rather be banging your wives and daughters..”

The only requisite for gaming is to be willing to disrespect those women’s men,and take what they have.
yes it’s easy,the women have learned they do not need to stay faithful, so in a way they do deserve to be gamed,pumped and summarily dumped.

Those anti-gamers are the ones foolish enough to think they’re able to keep their women.
No is able to do that given the environment.
Make a better offer and get the girl.
Neg the guy in front of her and it’s either fight or be consigned to beta and loss the girl.
In short: game is establishing in men the willingness to play the females favorite game:You and him fight,and I’m the prize.(for now,until someone else wins the next round)

So just stand in the line men,and be prepared for risk for you and rewards for her.
Sounds pretty one sided to me,sounds like the guys get the losing end no matter what they do.

Tell me, Zippy, how much of an improveement is 10% over 0%? To put it another way, what number results from 10 divided by 0? 10/0 = ?

Also, 10% is just on the particular attempt. After the first one, the man can talk to a second and a third and a fourth woman. After about 10 or so, he will succeed. 10 approaches takes only a day or so. It is not hard to pick up a woman over just a weekend of effort.

The notion that ‘Game is a fraud unless it works 100% of the time for 100% of men’ shows how desperate, and intellectually bankrupt their points are.

But really, Zippy Catholic, I cannot understand why you would care.

He cares because of Sunday Morning Nightclub. PUAs go to church (which is an ideal environment for picking up sluts), and do the noble work of shielding innocent men from the predations of sluts who want a provider and the priest who would lead beta males into slavery.

Well, I read about a third of the comments. Guys, women are bitches. I am so sorry to tell you, because I am a woman, but I don’t like women very much. Good ones are few and far between. I hate feminism, the fun is the difference, right? I really feel for you guys, because like some of you say….Everything was fine then after 3 kids and pulling together, she wasn’t haaaaaaaaaapy anymore. I think today’s divorce laws are immoral. It should cut both ways. Actually, it does, but most women don’t know or care that they have ripped their children’s father from them. Very, very sad.
I am extremely happily married. My husband does not make a lot of money, but he has always floated my boat. I have tremendous respect for him. We have an extremely wonderful ahem, private life, better than EVER. I still get hit on from time to time, enjoy it very much, but he’s my guy. I suggest you guys go to a small church to find a woman. Christian woman are not eaten up with feminism, not all of them anyway. I would think a larger church would attract some people looking for ‘cleaner’ partners. Don’t go there, it’s probably a meat market. Our culture has really turned to garbage. Good luck. PS I am 61 and we have been married 32 years. I know, you think I’m dead. Not hardly. Life is very good.

The specific prescriptive “toolbox” of techniques originating in the PUA community: the “Commandments”, “Iron Rules” and such. I plan to analyze them in some depth at my own place; I’ve already covered much of the background analytical anti-feminism of the “manosphere”: hypergamy, fitness tests, etc. “Game” (as I’ve been told many times) is the toolbox, the specific recommendations of what to actually do which are proposed to create attraction in women and improve relationships with them.

ZippyCatholic, I have alternate proposal, a modification of the challenge that I gave to Cane Caldo, which he never took seriously. Your assertion is that Game does not exist. That can be tested.

Assertive and masculine behavior is a fundamental premise of Game. Therefore, starting immediately you should stop standing erect, but rather stoop. Roll your shoulders forward. Crane your neck out like a turkey,. Walk in a shuffling, non-masculine manner. None of this should affect your wife in any way, if Game is a fraud, right?

When you talk to your wife, do so in a high pitched, whiny voice, or in a boring monotone. Using a masculine, lower pitched voice is part of game. If Game is a fraud, you should be able to talk to your wife in any way possible, no mater how unmasculine, and not change her attraction to you in the slightest.

Touch her in a tentative, hesitant fashion. Kiss her only when no one else is present, and then only in a nervous, chicken-peck manner. Defer to her in public and private, and supplicate to her at all times. Fawn over her every slightest gesture of affection towards you, and assure her that you are not worthy of it. If game is not real, this should not change her affection for you, or her attitude, at all. She should behave exactly the same.

Cane Caldo, in his various to-and-fro dithering, at one point claimed Game did not exist, at another point claimed it was bad for churchgoing men. But what he never did was stop using Game techniques. : he never stopped standing erect, and speaking to his wife with a voice of masculinity, to pick one example. So in reality, he continued to Game his wife, he just called it something else. I suspect this to be true, because of the known attraction that Game generates in women, and Cane Caldo did not wish for his wife to lose attraction towards him, again.

Now you claim Game does not exist. Very well, then you should have no fear of avoiding all known Game techniques, as outlined above. Because if Game does not exist, then all the known attractors that Game discusses do not matter to women, including you wife. . Therefore, you should be able to reduce yourself to a total, utter, supplicating, cringing, submissive, doormat Beta and see zero change in your wife’s attitude towards you.

I’m sure that many men would be interested in the outcome of such an experiment on your part. Please let us all know as soon as possible when you intend to start , and keep us posted with regular reports on the various outcomes.

PS: If you wish Beta sex tips, those can be provided as well, but the general guidelines are simple: nothing manly. Not ever. Done as quickly and as silently as possible, and only in the dark.

The specific prescriptive “toolbox” of techniques originating in the PUA community: the “Commandments”, “Iron Rules” and such.

Well Game isn’t Dr Oddfellow’s Amazing Cure All Elixir. It can’t be tested in a laboratory. It’s just a definition of something we have all seen. Guys who are scum, without prospects or much in the way of redeeming features, do in fact have success with women far out of any rational understanding.

I guess you could reduce each component of Game and say…that’s just confidence, that’s just negging, etc. You can reduce any definition in that manner. Negging for example springs from the well observed fact that women like ‘bad boys’. If done to a man you would expect to get the finger, from a women, you get her phone number. Now we are constantly told that women want someone who respects them while they date those who hold them in contempt. It does work. I wish it didn’t and I don’t much care for the implications, but it does.

Unless you are just trying to define Game out of existence, I don’t really follow what bothers you about it?

No, it isn’t. I haven’t even decided what I think of the Commandments and Iron Rules and such yet, despite the best efforts of Game proponents in this thread to convince me that Game is no better than placebo.

“No better than placebo” by the way does not mean “doesn’t exist”. Maybe drinking a beer before an approach is more effective, maybe Game is more effective, and maybe popping a sugar pill is more effective; but whatever the hierarchy of effectiveness, in no case have I asserted that alcohol, Game, or placebos don’t exist.

ZippyCatholic, when will you start thee experiment? When will you actively, and deiiberately, avoid using or discard every technique known to exist in Game? If Game does not exist, or is merely a mental placebo, either way you should be able to deliberately eschew all Game techniques, yet still see no change in your wife’s attitude and affection towards you.

Come, come, now. If you truly believe what you claim, then you should have no fear or qualm about deiiberately lowering your status within your family below that of your wife. Because doing that can in no way change anything in your wife’s attitude towards you, or in the dynamics of family leadership, right?

The only reason for you to refuse to conduct the experiment is obvious: you fear the results.
Of course, Game predicts what would happen…but you must reject that prediction. Therefore, you have no logical reason to fear the results.

Therefore, you have no logical reason not to conduct the experiment. When will you start, please?

TFH, I believe there is another category of Game denier previously missed. The Not Invented Here (NIH) type.

These are church going men and women who resent the fact that scruffy PUA’s know more about women, and men, and relationships, than any one in in any church. It is sort of similar to the fight over the heliocentric model of the solar system – the more the facts pile up that demonstrate the old system does not make accurate predictions, the harder the established believers in that system fight to salvage it. And the shriller their denials of first-person experience by others gets, too.

Because there is a lot invested, by women and their mangina /white knights, in men being trained to be submissive, subservient, easily looted ATM doormats. If men learn the truth about women, the what will be left for manginas and their white knight pals to do, eh? Men and women who truly care about families should be glad to see Game techniques taught to married men – they should be glad to see marriages saved, rather than fed into the divorce grinder. But the NIH type Game deniers can’t stand the thought that an “impure” idea – such as, women are imperfect creatures that respond to known stimuli in a more or less predictable fashion – might be discovered, and refined, and demonstrated reliably, and finally taught to men by someone other than their priest, or their pastor, or their accountability group leader, or their singles ministry. or some other approved member of their in-group

The NIH Game deniers would rather see thousands, even tens of thousands, of men sufferin various ways for years, even decades, than admit that someone outside of their in-group knows even a bit of truth about women, men, and relationships. So on second thought, maybe the Galileo example is incorrect. Maybe the NIH deniers are more like a group of doctors who would rather see men and women die, than admit that blood transfusions are safe and practical…even after seeing a demonstration of a blood transfusion performed.

Zippy CatholicI always find it rather amusing when strangers in a blog combox think they have figured out what I care about.

Well, you apparently know intimate details of the lives of multiple married men and women whom you have never met. In fact, you seem to believe you know more about their lives than they do. That strikes me as pretty arrogant. Sort of like a bad fortune teller at the circus sideshow…fun to watch, for a while. But predictable after not too long.

Imagine if Game opponents applied their reasoning to public speaking. I have a friend who has been in the Toastmasters for years. His ability to speak in front of small groups and large groups, has really improved. He has benefited in personal confidence, and he has benefited in his career by being able to present at meetings in a very polished manner. Of course, there’s no emotional impact in someone becoming a good public speaker, so no one goes around denouncing Toastmasters as a fraud, or a fake, or a placebo.

But just imagine santi Game peole as anti Toastmaster.

“There’s no need to join that group! It’s a fraud! Anyone can speak in public! You don’t need to prepare anything in advance, just stand up and be yourself. You don’t need to know anything about a topic, just speak from the heart. It does not matter how loud or soft you talk, or how slow or fast. if you mumble, then it doesn’t matter, the audience should listen more carefully. If you shout, then that’s fine, they can hear you in the back. There is no need to make eye contact, nor is there any reason to ever pause in an address. If you read your speech from a piece of paper with your head down, in a total monotone, that’s just fine, too- the audience should pay more attention if they can’t quite hear every word, anyway. You do not have to know your audience, either. Every audience is the same! Just stand up, say what you have to say, and sit down. All instruction in public speaking is merely a placebo. Just have some alcohol, a few minutes before your speech, and everything will be fine. And don’t forget, there is no such thing as learning how to speak better than anyone else. It is impossible.”

Remember, men, it is impossible to teach anyone how to speak effectively in public, and immoral, and totally unnecessary as well.

One thing is for sure: if taking the manosphere seriously required the majority of resident combox critters to demonstrate basic reading comprehension and accurate paraphrase, it wouldn’t be possible to take the manosphere seriously. I’m not the sort to consider the manifest deficiencies of the most ridiculous of the combox denizens essential to the subject matter though.

What an amazing discussion. I guess I haven’t hung around these parts long enough to participate in the does game exist discussion. I think it’s actually a really good task to try and define what exactly is game.

So, what is game? Is game the entirety of the pair bonding dance? Or, is game a codified list of rules, techniques, actions, and sayings?

What’s the bare minimum that can be considered game?

Mostly, I’m just spitballing here.

Is good posture part of game? Well, I think good posture is important and it communicates self-respect, but some guys get laid like rockstars with crappy posture, and I’m not really certain how much your wife is going to respond to a change in your posture. It didn’t help my marriage, but it sure did help me.

What about eye contact? Is good eye contact game? Perhaps. I would say solid eye contact is more important than good posture, but I think there is a lot of room for variance in gaze behavior that still results in success with women however you want to define it. Again, I didn’t notice that reading the David Shade experiment and learning to make solid eye contact with people helped my marriage, but it sure did help me.

Was I learning game by improving my posture and engaging in better eye contact? I don’t think so.

How about moving calmly and easily through the world versus scurrying about? I find it a pretty solid indicator of a person’s self-esteem and self-image, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it game. However, I did find that strolling in public versus power walking places resulted in a mental change at the perception of increased social scrutiny. Again, it helped me, but had no effect on my marriage.

Negging. Certainly that has to be game. Maybe. What about the guys who neg and get worse results than before they learned about it?

Talking louder and with a more commanding voice? It works for some, not so much for others. Is that game? Is it still game if it doesn’t work for someone?

The opinion opener, the cube, magic tricks, peacocking, not buying girls drinks, etc etc etc. Are these game? I don’t know. What happens when they don’t work? What happens when the guy shows up to the club in a lime green suit and a purple hat and still has no success with women? His clothing got people’s attention, but was that all he hoped to receive?

What about learning to read body language and other subcommunications? Is that game? I certainly think so, but in and of itself, I’ve found that being pretty darned sure that a woman is really into you isn’t very helpful if you don’t have the confidence to approach. So, is it a failure of game, or something else?

Last one, what about finding out who you are, your value and boundaries in life? Is that game? I tend to say no, but it can pay huge dividends in how people treat you. This one had more beneficial effect on my relationship with my ex than most anything else. Now, if she wants to fight, I leave, or hang up the phone. I don’t have to put up with her crap. That would have been very useful when we were still married.

As I’ve said before, I think that the techniques and tactics of game are training wheels to help you become the man who doesn’t need the training wheels.

Zippy, when will you start the experiment I have outlined for you? If game is merely a placebo, then actively rejecting all known game techniques should have no effect upon your wife, nor on you, and no effect upon your marriage. So you have no logical reason for refusing to conduct the experiment.

When will you begin? How about tonight, starting right now? Ready, set……grovel!

“Game” amounts to this: if you act like a dumbshit, women will treat you as an equal.

Fools rush in, and all that jazz.

This is why alcohol “works” for some.

It’s also why the comboxes here are 97+% woman-free, even though much of the content is more about them than it is about men: Dalrock isn’t a dumbshit.

But he did miss the 7 billion reasons there’s evidently no big KGB level secret in actuality.

The SMP may be almost totally FU’ed, but the “Game” reaction to this holds to the premise that to do well is to fit in, which only serves to maintain and fortify the structures into which one is trying to fit, i.e., the status quo.

1. On the Pareto principle 20% of the effort gets 80% of the Pussy, and thus if 80% of the effort gets 20% of the Pussy then that 20% – the Game part – is surely largely pointless.

2. I am still utterly puzzled [per yfr] as to how a test could be set up to show the effectiveness of Game (as opposed to some other intervening factor, such as good looks or muscles – indeed yfr’s dog/magic stick example seems to support my doubts). In short seeing that Game appears not to be falsifiable (and may be a tautology) it is surely devoid of a scientific basis.

2. I am still utterly puzzled [per yfr] as to how a test could be set up to show the effectiveness of Game (as opposed to some other intervening factor, such as good looks or muscles – indeed yfr’s dog/magic stick example seems to support my doubts). In short seeing that Game appears not to be falsifiable (and may be a tautology) it is surely devoid of a scientific basis.

Wouldn’t it be equally problematic to set up a test to show that women are NOT attracted to ‘nerdish’ behavior? Do any of us have any doubt that behaving like a nerd is unattractive to women? How would you even begin to define what a nerd is, and create a test for the mix of behaviors that it consists of? Does that mean the statement is false?

ose 10%? Spare me the details of “Back 25 years ago”, please. Your dating experience circa 1987 is about as relevant to young men in 2012 as putting on a raccoon coat and learning to dance the Lindy Hop while playing a ukelele.
————
By the oak and the stone I’d rather dance the Tinkers Tanner

I can tell you that the “ask a hundred women and one will say yes” rule was well known when music was on MTV.

The question on the table here is to what extent the Iron Rules and Commandments – Game – actually have beneficial effect (and also, I suppose, what detrimental effects do they have).

Take two groups of twenty guys of roughly equal SMV. Have them try to get women’s phone numbers with factors like persistence held constant: ask each of 30 women three times each over the same period of time or whatever.

Compare the results (confirmed legitimate phone numbers and relative SMV of the women who give them out) of the guys who have read Roissy (the Game group) to the results of the guys who have never heard of Roissy (the control group).

That ought to give some indication of whether the specific content of Game has made any difference, and by how much. Based on the success rates people are claiming for Game it seems plausible that most of the “work” is being done just by showing up and taking action at all, independent of the specific content of Game — that is, placebo effects.

If it isn’t possible to do this even in theory then Game is not the “toolbox” I’ve been told over and over again that it is. It is some sort of religious conviction (again that isn’t necessarily perjorative; see my earlier comments).

For those of you that think game is a fraud keep doing what you are doing. Those that undrstand what game is share what you know with as many men as possible. the naysayers will talk you down for their own group approval and you just keep helping men find ways to survive misandry.

Zippy, when will you start the experiment I have outlined for you? If game is merely a placebo

Even if game is merely a placebo, it’s a placebo that helps men.

Even if none of the strategies worked (they do, but that’s irrelevant), getting one shy, single-mom raised dude to be more social through the use of a placebo is a good thing. Game does this, if nothing else. I’m the shy, single-mom raised dude who became more confident and social through applying some (not all) of the techniques. I spent no money (outside of an internet connection) on learning it.

I don’t think even the most hardened, zealous PUA would argue that game is the only way to become more socially proficient. There’s toastmasters, communications courses at your local community college, square-dance lessons, etc. etc. blah blah.

The people who don’t like game shouldn’t study it. I only wonder why they sit around obsessing about something they don’t like. Why do these people not expend all this energy studying and practicing something constructive that they *do* like, instead? It’s silly to waste one’s time raging against something a man has to choose to be a part of. Yes, it’s a placebo I took. I found it useful. Others did too. If it’s not your type of placebo, go do something else…

The Game critics, skeptics and deniers are all missing the forest for the trees.

They are failing to grok how the confirmation bias of their personal situations and experiences are not congruent to the experiences of those of us who have discovered the value of this thing called “Game.”

Like the East Coast Liberal journalist who was utterly shocked when Nixon won the Presidency: “Nobody I know voted for Nixon!?!?!?”

Let’s look at the three most prominent anti-game arguers on this thread:

YBM – if he’s being honest, he’s a foreigner from Italy. Utterly clueless about the level of cultural brainwashing and indoctrination the average American male is raised with.

Zippy – an Older Catholic man who was no doubt raised in an intact Family home and a strong Father figure in his life. Fails to see the necessity of game, because he was already raised in a home with a role model of proper masculine behavior.

The Real Petermen – Along with YBM, one of the revolting omegas that hangs out at the aspie loonybin, aka white&nerdy’s “Black Pill” blog.

The current generation of young adults in the SMP have been raised largely in the broken and dysfunctional social models of the Single mother households. If there is a man in the house, it’s a step fathers or a succession of Mama’s boyfriends.

Go google up the ratio of male-to-female public school teachers.

Understand that most men of this generation woke up every day in their single mother households, then went and spent the majority of their childhood in the female-run institutions of public education schooling system.

We live in an age of males raised largely under the authority of females.

We have been subjected to feminist propaganda and a society saturated in misandry our entire lives by our education system and mass media, and you have a whole generation of men who’ve been taught to “get in touch with their feminine side,” and “not be afraid to communicate their feeeeelings!”

“Boys are dumb, throw rocks at them”
“Never ever hit a woman. Ever. That’s wrong and it hurts us all.”
“Only men can stop rape.”

These are the media messages that have been pounded into our heads for a lifetime.

We are taught both overtly and covertly that men are pigs, sexist animals interested only in objectifying and using women.
We are rapists.
We are abusers.

We have unjustly oppressed the female gender in all of human history, and we now live in the age where we are in the process of making amends and restoring basic human dignity and “equality” to the female gender.

We are raised to hate ourselves, because we are male, and we are a part of the group that has collectively hurt, abused, raped and oppressed the fairer sex for millenia, and for that, we must ATONE.

The average guy raised in this environment saturated in misandry and feminine superiority doesn’t understand the positive aspects of masculinity, nor how masculinity is attractive to women. They only understand how to act like a lap dog for feminine approval.

We grew up in homes for which our mother’s ruled the roost. We grew up in homes for which we had to placate and supplicate to try and pacify the worst aspects of her mood swings and emotional roller coaster existence.

Especially those of us who were raised in a single mother home in which she brought home abusive, asshole boyfriends. We were there when she was physically and/or psychologically abused and an emotional wreck, crying and looking to us for comfort. Begging us to not grow up and become the kind of man responsible for her misery. To be caring, sensitive and not a jerk.

These are the kinds of experiences that have shaped this current generation of young men.

For some, they discover this thing called “game” and they learn that the most successful men in the mating game are PROUD of their masculine attributes. Are unapologetic in expressing their natural desire for sex with beautiful females. They learn that all of the things they were told were the keys to finding a happy relationship with a woman – to be nice, to defer, to always be caring and sensitive to her needs, all the things his abused and harried single mom told him to be, unlike all those abusive boyfriends that hurt her – all these things he’s been taught to practice and believe, only to be bewildered and befuddled when it usually leads straight to “let’s just be friends” rejection.

Or, we manage to get into a relationship or marriage, only to find out later that she’s “unhaaaapppy” or “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”

Then he finds “game” and if he’s capable of internalizing the concepts and analyzing his own behavior, realizes that everything his mother, his sisters, his aunts, his Churchian ministry, his white knight and mangina male role models all preached to him was wrong. The path of supplicating and approval seeking and deferring to her in an attempt to make her happy is actually responsible for the failure.

Game helps him see the contrast between what women say they find attractive, and what women actually demonstrate by their actions and behavior they really find attractive.

Game helps a man gain insight. It gives him a means of analyzing and assessing his own behavior and an understanding as to why he’s had so many failures and unhappiness in his attempts to have meaningful relationships with women.

Studying game, makes we, the male generation raised by the Single Mother Household and a Misandrist-saturated society completely sold out to the feminine imperative, see for the first time just how much we’ve been lied to and misled by our culture and society.

Many of you “anti-gamers” were not raised in the worst of this feminist-created environment. You were probably exposed to some of it, but you probably also had counterbalance. Positive masculine role models. A happy marriage household. Good male teachers. Perhaps a house for which you did not have the television as your primary entertainment option. For guys like you, you’re mystified as to why so many men find value in “Game.”

First, distinguish between analysis and action. Analysis is understanding the situation, and can be done in a room with a computer. When it comes to analysis of the situation – hypergamy, divorce theft, fitness testing, etc – which is mostly what Dalrock does, I’m pretty much fully on board.

Action is the domain of “Game”. Some people seem to define Game as “all action that has benefits”, which is obviously a ridiculous and unhelpful question-begging way to understand it. So lets set that aside and think about Game as specific prescriptions for action which have arisen from the PUA community: Iron Rules, Commandments, etc.

We can further distinguish between “negative Game” and “positive Game”, where negative Game just means avoiding the kinds of Beta behaviour where a man shoots himself in the foot: failing fitness tests, for example. I expect there is significant value here, and when I start analyzing the Commandments and Iron Rules and such in more depth I’m guessing that there will be some significant validity in there in terms of Negative Game. The extent to which this is something PUAs invented because of their evo-psyche awesomeness, as opposed to something just about all men learned from their fathers and other male role models the day before yesterday, is another matter. But nevertheless whatever the source there is probably significant value in “Negative Game”.

Positive Game – prescriptions from the PUA community of specific behaviours for generating attraction – is where I become much more doubtful. It is here especially where it seems that even ardent Game supporters claim success rates no better than placebo. As 8oxer points out, a placebo is in fact better than nothing. But medicines do have side effects too. Taking arsenic as a placebo isn’t going to be good for you in the long run.

That I am doubtful about the prescriptions of Game (though, again, it is jumping the gun to impute any conclusions to me here, because I haven’t reached any yet), especially Positive Game, doesn’t mean that I have no sympathy for men going through the misandrist meat grinder. It does not mean that I haven’t seen hypergamy destroy marriages and children around me, even in my own age cohort. I may be something of a “natural” (though I think if anything I am more of a natural sigma than a natural alpha), but that doesn’t render me incapable of discerning facts on the ground. It might even make me more objective about evaluating certain things. In short, it does not mean all of the various silly things that combox critters ascribe by knee-jerk: lack of imagination on your part does not translate into intellectual commitment on my part.

As 8oxer points out, a placebo is in fact better than nothing. But medicines do have side effects too. Taking arsenic as a placebo isn’t going to be good for you in the long run.

It’s a minor point, but the word placebo is defined by inactivity. You can’t take arsenic as a placebo, since it does do something substantial (makes you sick).

That aside, I agree with your sentiments. This is a complex issue. Game, if it exists (as I and others assume it does), is of neutral moral value. A man can use it to make himself irresistible to some hardworking beta dudes wife, and break up a family with it; or, he can use it to get various needs met. In this regard, its not much different from any field of study. You study the same books to build explosives as to build engines.

I think there is something to a critique of many PUAs, in that they sometimes do not have the proper philosophical underpinnings to apply their knowledge in an ethical fashion. Many PUA sites lionize sex with married women, which disgusts me. If sex is so easy to come by (which it is) you can’t screen out for women with families? Married women making themselves available does not imply lack of guilt on the part of the dude who takes advantage. We all need to be morally responsible for our own actions.

That’s part of the reason I like the dalrock site anyway. I don’t agree with marriage, but I think that married dudes have a hard enough time keeping their wives from being poached that they ought to learn some of the mechanisms of attraction. Had my dad read this site, my childhood would likely have been a lot better, as he would have been, you know, a part of it.

Boxer:It’s a minor point, but the word placebo is defined by inactivity. You can’t take arsenic as a placebo, since it does do something substantial (makes you sick).

Fair enough. I should have said “taking arsenic on the assumption that it is no worse than placebo”, or something like that. To quibble even further, a placebo is not inactivity but a harmless or neutral activity, the actual content of which is expected to have no effect (either correcting or aggravating) on the problem under analysis.

Game, if it exists (as I and others assume it does), is of neutral moral value.

I’ve seen that asserted many times, but it is not a conclusion I have reached, as yet. I’ll go further: I know for a fact that it is false about some of the rules of Game as advocated by PUAs.

I haven’t personally seen anyone make a serious attempt to explicitly extract the morally neutral yet useful techniques of PUA Game. I am going to make that attempt myself, or at least show what it would look like.

@Zippy
[i]People have asked what alternatives there are to Game, which are perhaps just as effective and with side effects which are no more intolerable. Might I suggest alcohol as a possibility?[/i]

What’s your alternative?

[i]negative Game just means avoiding the kinds of Beta behaviour where a man shoots himself in the foot: failing fitness tests, for example. I expect there is significant value here, and when I start analyzing the Commandments and Iron Rules and such in more depth I’m guessing that there will be some significant validity in there in terms of Negative Game. The extent to which this is something PUAs invented because of their evo-psyche awesomeness, as opposed to something just about all men learned from their fathers and other male role models the day before yesterday, is another matter. But nevertheless whatever the source there is probably significant value in “Negative Game”.[/i]
Wow, a concession … I’m just amazed.

Maybe for once you are not acting in a solipsistic manner but actually hearing the stories of other men who have been taught these behaviors. Or maybe you were challenged to do those negative behaviors in your own life and you realized you can’t go there without losing your wife’s attraction for you.

Hope this is an “ah ha!” moment for for you. But you are not all the way there, when it comes to negative behaviors, there’s no guess work here, these behaviors are almost always destructive to relationships. Again, open your ears to men like deti and van rooinek, open your ears to their pain on learning how these “nice guy” behaviors prescribed by their churches had severe negative effects on their courtships and their marriages.

Roissy describes himself as a Sadist. Whatever. The fact is that a lot of pain is not only un-avoidable but absolutely necessary for the average modern male to gain some enlightenment.
True Faith will prevail. The modern Church deserves severe chastisement but keep in mind that modern Churchianity we see around us would appear to be incomprehensible to guys like St. Patrick or Charlemange. (Karl Magnus).

Zippy, if you havent seen anyone around the manosphere attempt to extract the “morally neutral” elements of game, and/or extrapolate their outlook, you haven’t been looking very hard.

One must also acknowledge that people here have different definitions for words like ‘ethical’ or ‘moral’. Ironically, one of the finest examples of a guy who teaches ethical game is an atheist, Mr. Athol Kay.

It isn’t so much that as that a “technique” with a 10% or so success rate isn’t really a technique. When someone tells me that if you persist in this 10% effective technique – not with the same woman by the way, but with a different woman every time – it will eventually succeed, I’m inclined to conclude that the technique is acting as kind of a placebo, and all the work is being done by the persistence.

Persistence is of course important, but otherwise I disagree with your argument. Compare game with sales training: some people are natural salesmen, and don’t need training. Most of us, with training, can boost our closure rate from 1% to 10%. The fact that we don’t achieve 100% does not mean that the training is a placebo.

I think most sales training is a waste of time and money; and at any rate a good CEO will evaluate it critically versus other options, including ‘placebo’ options (team building morale parties might fill the role of placebo here).

It isn’t unreasonable to evaluate the specific prescriptions of Game in the same way. In fact it is unreasonable not to subject the specific prescriptions of Game to critical scrutiny.

@Zippy: As a Catholic myself, I look forward to seeing you on your blog exploring and explaining how Christian and Catholic men can attract women. What behaviors should they avoid, what behaviors should they engage in, etc. And be ready to have your points dissected. Right now, you’re just waving your finger at us saying no, no, no … you call me “patronizing” … but you won’t try those nice guy behaviors with your wife … because you know damn well what would happen if you did. You talk about specific prescriptions of Game … well one of those is don’t engage in “nice guy” behavior. You “guess” there might be some validity to that one, but you won’t try it in your own marriage… what am I supposed to think about that?

The atheist Athol Kay has done a lot of writing about the dynamics of LTR’s and marriages, what do you think of his work?

In my opinion many of the stupid girls in university in Germany (and there are indeed also stupid girls) are very superficial. Game may help to lay those girls. Sure. But if You have too much weight, just a little bit too much fat, those superficial and high handed (LSE-) girls may not give You a simple look.
Maybe I am a kind of hater. But not a real one. I think I am just realistic about the situation in young society.

I’ve been on this red pill journey coming up on two years now. I’m really starting to get to the viewpoint that a married man has to be ready to tell his wife that she is showing certain behaviors that are unacceptable and irritating, and that she needs to stop them now. He also needs to be ready to walk away if she won’t submit to his leadership, she won’t cooperate, she insists that he take all the responsibility and none of the authority; she is in open rebellion against him; she deprives him of sex; or otherwise refuses to act like a wife.

It’s unfortunate, but a married man also to be ready for the unthinkable — that she will do something to blow it all to hell, something that brings an abrupt end to the marriage. She could blindside you with an “I’m not haaaaappy” and leave at the drop of a hat, or you discover she has cheated on you. Maybe you don’t think about it all the time; maybe it’s just in the back of your mind. But a married man has to be ready for at least the possibility that a wife will detonate the marriage, and to have a contingency plan in place.

* My SMV is going up while my wife’s is decreasing
* No man in his right mind would take her after she dumped me– she might as well just tatoo “I’m a worthless investment” on her forehead.
* I am the best thing going for my kids… and the fact that my wife and I were both essentially fatherless is a huge and ongoing setback for us personally.
* Even if another dude came in and wanted play house with her… he’d be gone as soon as the sex stopped being worth the trouble… and my kids would probably never see him again if he left.

I can lay those cards on the table and just say, “go ahead… Nuke it. But I’d rather go to jail than voluntarily subsidize your betrayal, your infidelity, your faithlessness. Yeah, nuke it if you want… I’m through playing patsy for you. There is nothing I’d rather do than be a father to my children, but I will not endure the humiliation of seeing them just on weekends or whatever. That you would casually threaten divorce and separation only shows that you care nothing for their welfare. You aren’t 25 anymore. Grow the f*** up already!”

The divorce industry has even gotten to my young daughter…. It seems like there are no adults talking sense anywhere….

I’ve done pretty much the same thing and reached the same conclusions. I know that :

1. My wife and kids need me much more than I need them.
2. She cannot manage a job and a house and our kids by herself.
3. My wife will not be able to secure commitment of any kind from a man having higher value than me. Sex might be another story, but it would be limited to STRs and pump & dumps.
4. If our marriage ends, I no longer have any incentive to work and produce at the pace and output I keep up now. The gravy train will come to a screeching halt.
5. Divorce will consume and deplete the marital assets through litigation battles over property division and custody, and paying attorney fees. If she divorces me, there will be nothing left for either of us to take at the conclusion of the process.
6. If she divorces me because of her adultery or abandonment or unhaaappiness, I will simply inform all of her friends, acquaintances and family members of her treachery and the reasons she is walking away. She will not control the marrative; and she will not be permitted to paint me as the villain. It will not be because I made her unhaaaappy, it would be because she has character deficiencies which cause her to refuse to live up to her agreement with me, and an inability to handle commitment. It will not be because I drove her to another man; it will be because she chose a course of action which revealed that her self-interests, selfishness, and lusts were more important to her than her husband, her children, and even her good name. It will not be because I caused her to leave; it will be because of her character deficiencies.

No, she hasn’t cheated, yet, to my knowledge. If she frivorced me… then that would be betrayal/infidelity/faithlessness of course.

(As a side note… I consider it to be inherently unfaithful and an act of infidelity for a wife to refuse to follow the principles of 1 Cor 7. This is exactly the point where the church has abandoned the modern husband. They are all ready of course to pile on if he looks at pornography at any time after she does this. Bah.)

4. If our marriage ends, I no longer have any incentive to work and produce at the pace and output I keep up now.

Except that the judge would impute your income to ensure that CS/Alimony could stay at the maximum possible level. In other words, imputed income (as decided by the whiteknight judge) will not allow you to work fewer hours.

Divorce will consume and deplete the marital assets through litigation battles over property division and custody, and paying attorney fees. If she divorces me, there will be nothing left for either of us to take at the conclusion of the process.

True, but this does not stop women, since women don’t understand cause and effect very well. They certainly are untroubled that the children’s future (e.g. college) is squandered in the process of paying divorce lawyers.

I will simply inform all of her friends, acquaintances and family members of her treachery and the reasons she is walking away. She will not control the narrative; and she will not be permitted to paint me as the villain.

That would be hard, as about 95% of people are hardwired to side with the women. This goes back to prehistoric times, when the number of babies being born would not go down if a man died, but would only if a woman died. Hence, a woman’s life was worth 10x that of a man to broader society, and that mentality still exists today (a man dying on a battlefield still gets people less worked up than a woman living in poverty…. but still living).

You have all the right ideas, but to implement them would be very hard, and the deterrents that *should* be effective (as you noted in points 4 and 5), often are not for women due to their low cause-effect processing ability.

I emphasize again that a man does *not* have the option of working fewer hours to lower his income if he is attached to an alimony or childimony order. The laws have a mechanism via which income is imputed, and you owe a percentage of your full earning potential, as determined by a judge. You cannot work less, as you will fall behind in CS payments, and be jailed under the Bradley Amendment.

This is well-designed by feminists and SoCons to ensure male slavery. Any man who protests this is immediately shot down as attempting to be a ‘deadbeat Dad’ who is swindling his children (even though the mother spends the money on herself, not the children).

Ask Brendan or WF Price for more details about this law. Yes, imputed income is applied, and it really is that bad. Women want any man they are not attracted to, to be a slave. That is why democracy does not work, as women tend to shape the laws of society around these nefarious objectives.

Yes, I have heard of the principle of imputed income. I suppose if I were to be hard headed and stubborn about it I would simply go to jail. I don’t know if that is what I would do, but I would strongly consider it.

The point is mutually assured destruction. If a wife is hell bent on destroying her husband, she will destroy herself and her children and everything else around her in the process. It is not to her advantage to have ex-husband in jail not working and not producing. If he is out and working earning half as much as during the marriage, that is better than being in jail and earning nothing.

Yeah, the law ensures her access to my income whether she if faithful to our vows or not. That leaves me with reminding her that maintaining two homes is not free… and that (as a deterrent) I will fight her (hypothetical) divorce tooth and nail. She can spend her ill gotten gains on lawyers and not on some new beau. And yes, my name is mud if I resist in any way.

Government and the church have set up a tidy little racket for her. I was right where they wanted me the moment I said, “I do.”

@Some Guy, the real ball breaker is when you get stuck for her lawyer bills as happened to my buddy. I’ve already made the decision now that I will never pay a lawyer working for her. Ever. I will go to jail or leave the country first.

I suppose if I were to be hard headed and stubborn about it I would simply go to jail. I don’t know if that is what I would do, but I would strongly consider it.

That may be the only way the system breaks. A man who was earning enough to pay $30,000 a year in taxes is now costing the state $60,000 a year in costs. A net -$90,000 cost. If the number of men pulled out of the productive sector and turned into costly prisoners gets too high, the system breaks.

The point is mutually assured destruction. If a wife is hell bent on destroying her husband, she will destroy herself and her children and everything else around her in the process.

The thing is, the destruction to her is very gradual, over a process of years. So she does not notice it or connect the dots on how her actions years earlier caused it. Threatening MAD now will not deter most women, as they cannot grasp the long-term costs. Women do not understand cause and effect except in the most simple cases.

She can also get you arrested at any time under VAWA because she ‘feels threatened’, and all this talk of Mutually Assured Destruction will certainly qualify for that.

But yes, going to prison is definitely a way to cost the system a net loss of -$90,000 a year for the average man…

It is not to her advantage to have ex-husband in jail not working and not producing. If he is out and working earning half as much as during the marriage, that is better than being in jail and earning nothing.

Women don’t think that far, long term, unless they are in the top 10-15% of women…

It is frightening when a being that has such a poor grasp of cause and effect, is given this much power. That is why democracy (i.e. women voting) simply does not work over 3-4 generations.

Hmmm… I guess it is best to merely emphasize that (a) the new boyfriends won’t marry, (b) stepdad can disappear at any time– he has no vested interest in the children, (c) the next guy would not be better than me– she’s already snagged as big of a chump as she’s ever liable to find, (d) even the same income spread over two households is basically poverty… but the lawyers will still get large swaths of it, and (e) how many children’s lives have improved after a divorce?

This does not appeal to her feral nature, no. You still have to have a washboard stomach and an extra $20,000 a year to communicate to that. But somebody has to burst the divorce fantasy bubble. (The church sure as hell won’t do that– they’ve got copies of Fireproof to hand out for free.)

Run your credit cards up to maximum before you leave the country as well. I don’t know if you can but if you can draw cash from ATM machines with a credit card in the us consider doing that and maxing them out.

Hmmm… I guess it is best to merely emphasize that (a) the new boyfriends won’t marry, (b) stepdad can disappear at any time– he has no vested interest in the children, (c) the next guy would not be better than me– she’s already snagged as big of a chump as she’s ever liable to find…

When answering aspiring frivorcees on Yahoo Answers* I usually frame the scene of them talking with their girlfriends (the ones encouraging divorce) in a year or two. I point out that the girlfriends won’t be the ones entering the dating scene as a divorced single mother, but they will be great for offering “support” during their regular conversations on What is wrong with men? Why won’t they commit? (to a woman who has another man’s children and a track record of not keeping her commitment). Women intuitively understand that the men they want won’t commit to them, especially as a single mother divorcée. Framing it this way has added impact though since it takes their right to bitch about men following the divorce away from them. No victim-hood there.

While on one hand, Team Woman is a pretty strong force on a macro-level….

…..Note that a woman’s friends are actually sabotaging them in many cases. They encourage her to divorce, and then when her single-mother life turns out to be a lot worse than they told her it would be, the ‘friends’ secretly are glad that they have it better than her.

Women undermining other women by pretending to be their friends is also a subplot in the whole thing.

@Dalrock — Thank you, that is helpful. And I love love love those Answers you give. I wish that you could publish a book of them.

The woman: “Im not sure what i should do. I dont think im leaving him but im just not sure we should be married. We dont really have things in common or have the same views on things but we love each other for some reason.”

This is a woman-speak alternate for “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” It’s one I got routinely when the most obvious beginning stages of my relationship’s disintegration really hit me. I think it means… “you don’t really fire up the tingles any more and things that I think would change that don’t actually change it but I am unhappy and bored with you even though you’re fulfilling most all of the social contract as we both understand it but sticking it out or going through the motions or performing maintenance on our relationship just doesn’t seem authentic if you don’t make me feeeeeeel like doing it first so I’m putting you on notice that if there was another guy that was better than you I’d totally do him and somehow blame you that it happened if it came down to it and… why are you looking at me that way..? The fact that you are reacting this way means I am justified for having these feelings; I really don’t think this can work… maybe if I give you the cold shoulder treatment I can freeze you out of this deal and still maintain plausible deniability; you’re clueless about this relationship stuff anyway. Me? I’m a natural.”

My experience on my blog is that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Dudes read game, understand game, then actively resist deployment thereof. There’s some latent barrier – a conundrum that purposefully behaving more manly is not manly. Only being yourself, even if yourself is a pussy beta, is manly.

Wait, what?

This happened to me and me college roommate in Vegas two weeks ago. He reads my blog, but says not all guys want game (I write for nice guys screwing up their rxns). By the end of the weekend, he accidentally discovers the power social proof has on lighting his wife up. Now he can’t wait to run this one particular play when he gets back home.

Without referring to ALL the good commenters who have nibbled at the edges of my experience, here are some thoughts:

1) Game ABSOLUTELY does exist AND work, but it is in its infancy. One would think as it evolves men would see that you don’t use the same game for the same situations (it is much more dynamic than just day, night, club game, etc.)

2) Game has been around forever, but it has not been formalized on the male side until more recently – even my dad (61y.o.) knew all the things I was doing with women because he did them all with his women. Only difference was that there are now myriad terms with which to label various game components.

3) Offense is almost always the best defense. You don’t need to have 5 girls on your f**k list, 5 more on your “i want to bang one of her friends” list, etc, but I have found a solid attitude of “I want a good woman, but don’t need any woman” goes a long, long way to increasing the p-value of success.

4) I got screwed over badly on the 1st divorce. If a woman can actually give me the sweetheart deal it would take to marry again, she’s better seal that in a prenup… iron freaking-clad prenup. If she really wants equality that should not be an issue.

I have been in a internal moral battle over Christian “game” post red pill came post California divorce (Some of my past beta behavior now makes me cringe).
While I did recognize it was “real” & “valuable”, I didn’t quite know how to incorporate it in a moral / virtuous manner due to players / pua (ie how in heck do I make this work in Jewish Christian Discipleship)
Here are some thoughts regarding it
– The higher the partner count a woman has been with the more “damaged goods” she is and vice- versa.
– The more “damaged goods” she is the more “game” will be required to have a relationship.
– Men decide how much investment to make and how much “game” they will tolerate
– Judaeo Christian marriage is anti feminist to the nth degree and Christian Evangelical theology is making the situation worse by contributing to it
– Adams sin was he listened to his wife instead of G_Ds commandments. Abraham made the same mistake of listening to his wife and Ishmeal was the result (There are a heck of whole lot more)

Therefore ALL Christian men should learn “game” and use it morally, responsibly, and accordingly to sift out the feminist, delusional psychopaths masquerading as “Christians”

Many thanks to Dalrock, Deti, Opus, Maxpua, Rossi, imnobody, and many others for helping a old dude recognize and navigate shark infested waters….
~Shalom

For my own purposes, I’ve put game into the category of a social science and defined it this way:

The social science known as “game” is the study of the interaction between men and women within American culture.

Game is outgrowing its roots and becoming a system for understanding how American culture works.Dismissing game as nothing more than a bunch of techniques to to pick-up women is like dismissing the iPhone as nothing more than a fancy cell-phone (as Microsoft originally did; a mistake they are paying for now).